It Is Time For Basic Income (wage, generation, stereotypes, program)

[malamute]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

This is what we need for wealth distribution. With automation on the rise, this is the only solution. Labor will be obsolete in the next few decades.



Hawkins Ventures — It Is Time For Basic Income

Isn't this what we have already with all the many welfare handouts, unemployment handouts that keep getting extended, SSI, food stamps, housing vouchers? If you don't free like working, just claim a disability like depression or work-related stress, PTSD, and get free money.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by KaraG

LOL, are you kidding? You have never had a roommate? What silly arguments. You never had a roommate in college? During your first job in order to save money? Oh my, take a look at California, many families rent rooms out of their home to strangers in order to pay their mortgage. What about family members moving back in together to save money, are you against that too?

I'm merely saying that (a) there are also costs associated with living with roommates, and (b) sometimes it can cost you a lot of money and/or inconvenience. Just try finding a place to live after you were evicted for not covering the rent on which your roomie skipped.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It should be.

Not if you have to move in with family and welfare goes off of household income not individual income. Welfare is harder for singles with no kids because they cannot get the same benefit. Thressholds do go up per individual. Just look at the level for singles with no kids for Obamacare vs. 3 person households.

[ALackOfCreativity]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Welfare it's hard to get on if you are a single without a kid. Trust me on this.

Originally Posted by pknopp

It should be.

This brings up one of the big political problems standing in the way of BI implementation. The current system is very favorable to parents - especially single parents - and unfavorable to poor people without children. Similarly, it's very favorable to the chronically dependent who can retain eligibility long enough to learn the system and wait out wait lists and lotteries to stack multiple benefits together and especially get public housing, and unfavorable to the short-term poor who don't know how to navigate the system and either get off public benefits before qualifying for or don't bother with the wait lists, lotteries, etc.

So first let's add the restriction that it be cost-neutral or slightly more expensive (with higher efficiency and less waste getting Republicans to go along despite this) than the current system, which would be needed for Republican buy-in. Then as a consequence the result of going to a BI system as a result of the status quo and that requirement for Republican participation would be a significant transfer of resources from single parents to the childless poor, from the chronically poor to the down on their luck, and from public housing recipients to everyone else. A lot of Democrats care more about these groups than the poor generally, are part of these groups, or represent a community with a disproportionate number of members of these groups and I think the party would either go into civil war on this and not reach a conclusion or after some thought coalesce around the status quo, or go into denial mode and scream about Republicans not letting them expand the government further while getting nothing done.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by julian17033

This will begin to balance out and roughly equal the labor needed in order to maintain the economy.

There is no set amount of labor needed to maintain any economy, other than a Zero Level Economy.

Originally Posted by julian17033

A population that outstrips job availability and available man made and natural resources is a burden to society and cannot continue thus the reason why one see's the population replacement rate dropping.

Uh-huh....and what exactly did Micronesian and Melanesian peoples do?

Oh, they just explored, discovering new islands, new habitat, new resources, and eventually they reached an area on the South American continent that is now northern Chile.

And they did that circa 35,000 BCE....which makes them a helluva lot smarter than modern societies.

Originally Posted by julian17033

We as a collective whole are living through the adjustment period.

Speak for yourself....I have no need to make adjustments.

Originally Posted by pknopp

I did get it right. Socialists countries dont tell you where you will work, they just tell you to share your work with others.

No, Socialism is bureaucratic or oligarchical control of Capital.

The bureaucracy is government, but oligarchies are non-governmental agents operating in lieu of government, such as unions which control labor Capital.

Socialism operates across a spectrum where the bureaucracy or oligarchy may control some of the Capital, such as a percentage of each company; a controlling interest in companies -- in the style of Britain who controlled 51% (or more depending on the company) of all stocks in all publicly traded corporations; or own the companies or industries outright --SOEs or State-owned Enterprises.

Telling people where to work is not a requirement of Socialism, rather it's a facet on one part of the spectrum of Socialism.

No Communist State has ever existed.

The closest thing to Communism in the US would be publicly traded corporations -- the Capital is owned by people, albeit a special class of people called shareholders or stockholders. Anyone can be a shareholder, you just have to stop wasting money on scratch-off Lotto tickets and 40-ounce missiles and buy stocks instead.

Don't confuse Property Theories with Economics Systems.

The Free Market System is compatible with Capitalism, but also Socialism. In theory, it is compatible with Communism -- look at corporations.

The Command System is typically used with Socialism --- but don't blind yourself to the reality that the Command System can also be used with Capitalism.

Monopolies typically operate as Command Groups employing Soviet-style Command Economics, dictating prices and quotas and what-not.

Your Healthcare system for the last 80+ years has been Soviet-style Command Economics with Capitalism.

The Command Group there is the American Hospital Association which just like the Soviet Unions, operates monopolies and sets prices and quotas on healthcare and medical services, which is why you pay so much more than you would under the Free Market System.

Originally Posted by mwruckman

One of the ways you know the USA is not a Soviet style Socialist Country, is people like Mircea would be getting that late night knock on the door. You know the one where you get to ride in black car to go disappear into either Solzhenitsyns "Cancer Ward" or join Ivan Denisnovich in some dreary transit camp doing corrective labor. However, I suspect he would be smart enough to parrot the Party Line if not be writing some of it as we now speak.

Which party is that? The Economics Party?

I didn't write the Laws of Economics.....neither did anyone else.

Originally Posted by freemkt

This is a fail. There are additional costs involved with roommates.

Since we do not (yet) have individual metering for power and energy consumption (a futuristic fantasy of mine), most people will probably find their utility expenses rise with a roommate.

Um, you split the utility bill.

Originally Posted by freemkt

Then there is the cost of having your stuff damaged or stolen by roommate(s). And what about when your roommate can't come up with the electric or rent money and YOU have to cover it or get disconnected/evicted?

Then learn how to screen room-mates.

You ought to consider changing your moniker to "FullofExcuses"....

Mircea

[Twin Fifties]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

This is what we need for wealth distribution. With automation on the rise, this is the only solution. Labor will be obsolete in the next few decades.



Hawkins Ventures — It Is Time For Basic Income

That's fine, as long as you self-fund your basic income.

[mkpunk]

I think we need to look at leg ups rather than hand outs. Like for unemployment, you top end it and lower it every month or two to encourage getting a job. Another is rather than a hard cut off for food stamps, you lose say $50 or every $100 you make.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Not if you have to move in with family and welfare goes off of household income not individual income. Welfare is harder for singles with no kids because they cannot get the same benefit. Thressholds do go up per individual. Just look at the level for singles with no kids for Obamacare vs. 3 person households.

As it should be.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Mircea

No Communist State has ever existed.

We arent writing a college thesis here. You took all that time to write something that doesn't actually dispute my point and hardly anyone will bother reading it.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by pknopp

As it should be.

It should but not to the extent it is. It costs more to raise kids but it still costs a lot to live on one's own especially these days with record high rent, food and gasoline (as a percentage of wages.)