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.
Sorry, I disagree with your premise. The very measure of adding value is what a willing buyer will pay for your value-add.
If by adding value, you mean "adding value to your bank account", then you are correct where jobs are concerned. If you consider adding value to society or aggregate prosperity, then you are definitely wrong.
6.35% of the 2007 workforce are still out of work. Add that to the current unemployment rate, then and now it is listed as 5%, so we have an effective unemployment rate of 11.35% or so.
6.35% of the 2007 workforce are still out of work. Add that to the current unemployment rate, then and now it is listed as 5%, so we have an effective unemployment rate of 11.35% or so.
Is basic income just a band aid for a larger problem?
Would the real solution be gradually and slowly reducing the US population over time and encouraging a change to the one income household?
The Laws of Economics will force such changes one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
All of our ancestors came here from somewhere else seeking a better life.
If people cannot add enough value (that is, earn a living) to afford NYC or SF, they should move to somewhere with a lower cost of living such as maybe Arkansas or Oklahoma.
If they are incapable of adding value in the USA, perhaps they should follow their ancestor's example and emigrate to, say, China or Rwanda or Sierra Leone or Papua New Guinea or Tuvalu.
Amen.
Technology is not an issue in developing- and emerging-States, due to costs, and won't be an issue for at least several generations.
But in terms of our economy they should be counted as unemployment for economic calculations. Our economy will not act like it use to until they are back to work.
At least the incentive to *not* work would be removed. 3% of the population is a pittance.
3% of the population is absolutely not a pittance. That's one person in every 33 who does nothing but live off the largesse of the taxpayer. Those subsidies for public housing, food, and a host of other government supplied services add up very, very quickly. As one example, when welfare was reformed in 1996, the number of recipients plunged by 67%, even though the unemployment rate only declined by roughly 20% during that time period. That means there were residual long-term clients of the state, content to live off the dole.
In fact, I remember a project I worked on with a housing authority. My job was to interview about 100 residents of a housing project in anticipation of getting funding for a Hope VI effort. It was remarkable. Roughly half of those who were in public housing had only been there under a year or two. They had been laid off or suffered some misfortune. Not by coincidence, they were also the same group who were taking advantage of job placement and training programs.
The other half? They had been there for years, sometimes decades. One woman had been in public housing since the 1950s. A couple of guys were rather candid about matters, describing how they could string together some under-the-table jobs such as mowing lawns and, combined with working the system, live comfortably. Those are the 3%.
Mind you, if someone is down on their luck or been economically dislocated, we have an obligation to help him. But if you're talking about that second group? No freaking way.
The nice thing about a BI is that people will no longer have an *incentive* to sit on the couch and do nothing. The way things are currently rigged, the working poor are often worse off than those who don't work.
I'm curious, what did you do to earn your money?
How do you figure? If they get money for doing nothing, then that's plenty of incentive to sit around and do nothing.
What incentive will people have to actually go out and work?
Those working poor that are worse off are usually that way thanks to poor life choices, and having children they can't afford.
Adding value does not equate to increased wages in this economy. That's the problem, writ large.
Let me give you a real life example of what I'm talking about:
I have a friend that had an idea that he thought would save the company he worked for close to a million dollars per year. He sat down with his boss and got the go ahead to design and implement his idea. He was assured they would take care of him with a large bonus if he was able to pull it off. So he did it, and his idea was even more successful than advertised. He then asked his boss for a large bonus and a large raise.
Instead of getting his large bonus and large raise, they gave him a one time token bonus with no raise. End result- company is 10 million to the good after 10 years, my friend is 1k to the good.
I realize this is an extreme example, but I believe it's relevant. Often times, none of the people that matter actually care how much money you can produce or save for the company, because they aren't going to see any of it, anyway.
This is what happens when you have too many people chasing too few jobs.
Not sure what the problem is here. He was given what he was promised. If he had wanted a raise on top of it, maybe he should have negotiated that also.
You ignore the moral consequences of giving irresponsible people choices.
You and your ilk lament the fact that in spite of 45 Million people receiving Food Stamps, there is still a tremendous amount of "Food Insecurity"
Explain how giving cash in lieu of Food Stamps will alleviate "Food Insecurity."
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.
