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.
OP forgets about basic human nature. If the government sets up a program to provide everyone with a stipend to provide for the basic needs, to where they can subsist with no other income, more people will opt to settle for such an existence, thereby making it necessary to take even more away from those that feel otherwise.
The people who try to make it on their own, but only have a little more than what the government would give them, have little incentive to push on, since their taxes are being taken to support others that are too lazy. They give up, the taxes have to increase because there are more people taking and fewer people giving. The process keeps getting worse.
The best thing government can do is to get out of the way of job creation to the point where there are more jobs than workers, then let hunger determine the path that human nature takes. You can still provide for the people who have physical or mental incapacities keeping them from providing for themselves. There will always be that.
OP forgets about basic human nature. If the government sets up a program to provide everyone with a stipend to provide for the basic needs, to where they can subsist with no other income, more people will opt to settle for such an existence, thereby making it necessary to take even more away from those that feel otherwise.
Several trial attempts prove you wrong. Well...not completely wrong, but mostly wrong. A small % DO stop working...to attend college or raise children. Both which benefit society immensely. Turns out humans arent wired that way. By far the vast majority of us want to work. I was considering retiring young recently...not with a lot of money, but enough that I could do it. I lasted 3 months.
Quote:
The people who try to make it on their own, but only have a little more than what the government would give them, have little incentive to push on, since their taxes are being taken to support others that are too lazy. They give up, the taxes have to increase because there are more people taking and fewer people giving. The process keeps getting worse.
Uh huh. Sure. Feel free to stop. See my earlier comment? Theres a ton of people who will be more then happy to work. The freeloaders? Are already freeloading.
Quote:
The best thing government can do is to get out of the way of job creation to the point where there are more jobs than workers, then let hunger determine the path that human nature takes. You can still provide for the people who have physical or mental incapacities keeping them from providing for themselves. There will always be that.
Sigh. This is a common argument, "get out of the way". Its a nice sound bite, but reality is more complex then that. I mean sure, China gets out of the way alright.....hey did you see the recent pictures of the horrifically damaging smog that's killing so many of them early? Its pink. No seriously. PINK.
It costs $100 a day to house someone in prison ($3,000 a month).
Some really nice and rich countries give their citizens $900 a month no matter what, or something like that. (Finland?).
Imagine all the fewer emergency calls to homeless people, for medical or for criminal, if they were just given enough money to live on without being homeless.
There would still be some emergency calls and still be some criminals, but I would guess a lot less since people would have the cheaper means of taking care of themselves before their problems became emergencies.
ER visits cost a fortune. Housing someone in prison for selling drugs costs a fortune. Beggers even make $20 an hour and imagine all the money you would save going to the grocery store and not having to give beggars anything.
I was guessing a cheaper alternative would be to give some people money like Finland from the start.
You might say: well if word got out that homeless people were getting free money, nobody would work.
I think that's a myth that some politicians perpetuate.
There are so many job seekers and I think most people are good people, trying to do the right thing, not trying to exploit any system.
I was looking at secretary jobs and there were like 55 applications for one single secretary job. Most people like the dignity, respect, and independence you get from earning your own money.
Thank you for reading and having an open mind.
Please let us know when you start giving a homeless person $900 per month.
I know that is cheaper to house the homeless than letting them live on the street's. Utah actually housed mostly all the homeless people in the state think only 200 continue to be homeless. They discussed the feasibility of doing this on California where the number was close to 20,000 or something.
Makes sense uninsured hospital visits would decrease in theory, less use of city service's sanitation/EMS/police so forth, less locked in prison, less and less a day would be involved with substances, and so forth.
These number's are a bit of a stretch it cost on average $40,000;a year for one homeless person. Utahs' program about $20,000 a year.
Big difference between $800 Million a year to $400 Million a year.
Imagine all the fewer emergency calls to homeless people, for medical or for criminal, if they were just given enough money to live on without being homeless.
I guess I didn't realize homeless people received emergency calls. Typically those go to the authorities. Maybe that's the problem where you live -- 911 is routed to homeless people instead of the police and fire.
But no, seriously, what you're describing is referred to as 'basic universal income.' The idea is that the Federal Reserve would create currency -- like it currently does -- and instead of lending that to banks and government at 0%, it would just straight-up give that money to the American people. It's a sort of radical idea, and I'd want to see several other countries successfully enact it before the United States considers it as a replacement to welfare.
To someone with a 19th-century mentality, where work was plentiful, the system would be a disaster. But if you take a 21st century post-scarcity mentality, where technology has reduced labor demand so severely that huge masses of people have no hope of becoming economically viable in the labor market, it makes sense.
OP forgets about basic human nature. If the government sets up a program to provide everyone with a stipend to provide for the basic needs, to where they can subsist with no other income, more people will opt to settle for such an existence, thereby making it necessary to take even more away from those that feel otherwise.
We're already there, and they only scream for more. Anyone who isn't for redistribution is a racist bigot simply for disagreeing with their regressive ideology. The left are always quick to boast of how tolerant and open minded they are.
Just because they call themselves a thing does not make it true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
To someone with a 19th-century mentality, where work was plentiful, the system would be a disaster. But if you take a 21st century post-scarcity mentality, where technology has reduced labor demand so severely that huge masses of people have no hope of becoming economically viable in the labor market, it makes sense.
What makes sense is to use the money to teach people how to become viable in the age of technology. Simply paying them off for being stupid and ignorant is no solution at all.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever"
Often homeless people end up criminals, though, to desperation or stupidity or mental illness.
And I do believe it is a crime in some places.
You're not allowed to be homeless.
But there are a lot of homeless people who the police just pass by.
Well, it certainly shouldn't be a crime anywhere.
I understand that in some cases there are drug and crime connections, but I bet there's a lot of bad luck thrown in, too.
What makes sense is to use the money to teach people how to become viable in the age of technology. Simply paying them off for being stupid and ignorant is no solution at all.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever"
A myth
Bwahahaha.
OK I know you are trying to be serious...but what exactly do you think humans will be doing? We ar just at the leading edge of this, but I have to say....there is very very very little that humans will be able to do better in comparison to whats coming in my lifetime.
Know whats different? Its the horse analogy. Horses did great, new technologies like the wheel, the carriage, etc created new work for them....up until something came along that could do everything better. Now? Theres hardly any working. And thats our future. Theres nothing a human being can do other then emotions, that automation will not be fully capable of soon.
Basic income discussions need to happen now. Because within a decade they will be needed desperately.
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.
