General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat If We Just Gave Poor People a Basic Income for Life? That’s What We’re About to Test.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/04/14/universal_basic_income_this_nonprofit_is_about_to_test_it_in_a_big_way.htmlAs it turns out, that assumption was wrong. Across many contexts and continents, experimental tests show that the poor don’t stop trying when they are given money, and they don’t get drunk. Instead, they make productive use of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and investing in businesses and their own futures. Even a short-term infusion of capital has been shown to significantly improve long-term living standards, improve psychological well-being, and even add one year of life.
On the other hand, well-intentioned social programs have often fallen short. A recent World Bank study concludes that “skills training and microfinance have shown little impact on poverty or stability, especially relative to program cost.” Moreover, this paternalistic approach is often for naught: Jesse Cunha, for example, finds no differences in health and nutritional outcomes between providing basic foods and providing an equally sized cash program. Most importantly, though, the poor prefer the freedom, dignity, and flexibility of cash transfers—more than 80 percent of the poor in a study in Bihar, India, were willing to sell their food vouchers for cash, many at a 25 to 75 percent discount.
As a result of this evidence, the winds are shifting in the world of development policy: The European Commission recently suggested that policymakers “always ask the question, ‘Why not cash?’” UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon has argued that “cash-based programming should be the preferred and default method of support.” In other words, the hard evidence behind cash has provoked a healthy debate about how to reform the infrastructure of anti-poverty programming and foreign aid.
A universal guaranteed income is the only thing that makes sense going forward.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)middle and working classes, then essentially all that is being accomplished is that the Wealth Gap between the middle class and the poor is decreasing. The 99% will equalize out as one big class of serfs.
The growing wealth gap is the biggest problem facing us today. The more resources that move from the 99% to the 1%, the harder and harder it will become for anyone in the 99% to survive.
Nothing else will matter if the Wealthy 1% end up with all the wealth and resources.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)
Javaman
(62,534 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)you'll get hides and get kicked out.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)
I thought brain dead might be too harsh.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Last month's provincial budget promised a pilot project to test "that a basic income could build on the success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits by providing more consistent and predictable support.
But it was experimented with in the province of Manitoba in the 70's:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html
Between 1974 and 1979, residents of a small Manitoba city were selected to be subjects in a project that ensured basic annual incomes for everyone. For five years, monthly cheques were delivered to the poorest residents of Dauphin, Man. – no strings attached.
And for five years, poverty was completely eliminated.
The program was dubbed “Mincome” – a neologism of “minimum income” – and it was the first of its kind in North America. It stood out from similar American projects at the time because it didn’t shut out seniors and the disabled from qualification.
The project’s original intent was to evaluate if giving cheques to the working poor, enough to top-up their incomes to a living wage, would kill people’s motivation to work. It didn’t.
But the Conservative government that took power provincially in 1977 – and federally in 1979 – had no interest in implementing the project more widely. Researchers were told to pack up the project’s records into 1,800 boxes and place them in storage.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)wouldn't have ever know unless I looked specifically for this. That's excellent news and I'm confident it could work here if done correctly.
Sadly we're a nation of greed, that should tell you everything you need to know.
Working on it though!
The Far Left
(59 posts)Some of our troubles come from robots:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonderful_and_terrifying_implications_of_computers_that_can_learn
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'm way into Science and that looks like an excellent TED. I'm going to see if I can stream it on the big screen.
Thank You for that! 
On that topic, It will usher in automation faster and put us all out of jobs sooner. It's inevitable. There's been some talk about a standard wage for citizens or something like that when it all happens. It'd be nice for everyone to focus on their interest, I think that's when great discoveries can be made.
Ah well, one can dream.
thanks again!
-p
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The more wealth your friends amass (The Clinton Family $15,000,000 and growing by the minute) the greater the poverty needs.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)That is how I read you when you say it shouldn't come from the middle class.
Some of it will have to, but most of it will come from the wealth this nation creates but which is stolen by the rich and their corporations.
True Democratic Socialism is going to require sacrifice from you middle class folks too.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)economic drain on the 99% by the 1%. You may scoff at the middle class losing wealth but it's the middle and working classes that support all of our schools, military, fire depts, etc. You move that wealth into the top 1% as has been going on for decades and there will be nothing left for safety nets. How very strange that you would pick the middle class to pick on. I pay taxes, the Rich Fat Cats that you seem to protect don't.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Were you or were you not the first one to respond and make mention that while we might need these things the middle class cant contribute?
You see I am speaking on behalf of any household with less than $10,000 of income and they think a household, middle class, with income of $100,000, is doing just fine and can probably afford a few more bucks.
The simple fact is we need higher taxes on many, but also more socialism so it sort of evens out.
Rilesome
(33 posts)Jackie said "you middle class folks".
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)superiority maybe?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Sounds great to the average citizen. To the top .001%? Pocket change.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)or did he do us a favor?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)It is a fact that for poor people, they will spend virtually all this income.
The products and services they spend this money on will lead to income for businesses.
The increase in demand leads to new employment.
The newly employed will have more money to spend.
And round and round we go.
All the while this income is being taxed.
It's possible that $1 in spending for basic income will lead to > $1 increase in tax revenue.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)by the Wealthy Fat Cats. They've been draining our wealth and resources for decades. Unless we stop this drain, increasing the standard of living of the poor will just bring down the standard of living of the middle and working classes. The Wealthy must be made to pay their fair share or the 99% will become serfs.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)I thoroughly believe that the tax rate should be 50% for people making over a million $.
pberq
(2,950 posts)This article lists many possibilities. Here are some of them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/why-should-we-support-the_b_7630162.html
(snip)
Basic income is entirely affordable given all the current and hugely wasteful means-tested programs full of unnecessary bureaucracy that can be consolidated into it. And the cost also depends greatly on the chosen plan. A plan of $12,000 per U.S. citizen over 18, and $4,000 per citizen under 18 amounts to a revenue need of $2.98 trillion, which after all the programs that can be eliminated are rolled into it, requires an additional need of $1.5 trillion or so. So where do we come up with an additional $1.5 trillion?
. . .
• These other sources of revenue could be a carbon tax ($440 billion), a financial transaction tax ($350 billion), or taxing capital gains like ordinary income and creating new upper tax brackets ($160 billion). Did you know that for fifty years — between 1932 and 1982 — the top income tax rate averaged 82%? Our current highest rate is 39%.
• From 2008 to 2014, we created about $5 trillion out of thin air, and handed it to banks in hopes they would lend it to people. It was called quantitative easing. The result was rich people got even richer. Why not skip the banks, and just hand debt-free money directly and equally to all citizens? Potentially, a quarter of basic income could require no taxes at all.
StarzGuy
(254 posts)Why not issue the cash to every US citizen? It would make sense for me being on a fixed income now. I currently have difficulty making ends meet every month.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)plans require the Rich Fat Cats to pay their fair share.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)There are worried that we will figure out what Democracy allows us to do.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)so that it can be readily answered by those who support any such plan. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss people for asking questions with the intent to further understand how such a system would work. These sorts of questions and discussions help work out ideas, find problem areas, and work out solutions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I just can't believe THAT poster asked it ... he/she is quick to point out where the money for everything else can come from.
pberq
(2,950 posts)See this post for starters:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7759363
clarice
(5,504 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is quick to point out where the money is for Sanders' initiatives ... I was just surprised he/she would ask that question.
clarice
(5,504 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but yes ... the "how to pay for it" is one of the most important questions.
clarice
(5,504 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the proposal is called a "wish."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that you don't give your opinion. But that's typical. Just spit barbs and run. So let me guess. You think the Fat Middle Class should support the safety nets and leave the Rich Fat Cats to their greed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Most of the stuff posted to DU-Paris and the GD, merit nothing more. And, won't until Democrats repopulate this board.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clinton supporters in a thread like this. Only if they come to harass. But I don't think that's you. I think you are here to discuss how to stop the Wealthy 1% from continuing to steal our wealth and resources. Surely you side with the 99% and not the Rich Fat Cats.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I know, you support Trickle Down.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but I support trickle up; not, the "raise my boat" trickle down you seem to support.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the little guy. The economy has been growing for decades for the Wealthy. They've tripled their wealth while the 99% has be stagnated or losing ground.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Please Note: I AM NOT SAYING HILLARY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE ... SHE LOOKED TO THEM TO PROVIDE "THE BODIES FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE PRISON INDUSTRY".
The quote is from a letter written by Black Lives Activist Ashley Williams.
Here are some important points made by Ms. Williams:
The 1994 Crime Bill that she so vigorously defended not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners. The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net.”
“Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.”
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sanders signed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clinton. For someone that isn't a Clinton supporter you seem to always defend her and disparage Sanders. I think you think you are fooling us.
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Just a thought, but in the interests of clarity, you might want to take a chill pill.
. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)whathehell
(29,090 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"take a chill pill" and not the person that continues to term me a HRC supporter, despite being told, directly, numerous times, that I am not?
whathehell
(29,090 posts)It seemed like an over reaction...Please understand that I only saw ONE post of yours
declaring yourself to be a non-supporter of Hillary, and have absolutely NO direct knowledge
of your history on the matter with that other poster. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)whathehell
(29,090 posts)but since it's been awhile, and you were 'just curious' and all, I thought I'd give it another try.
Thanks for the confirmation...It saves me from wasting future time with you. 
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)How much money is being spent at this time in order to determine who is eligible for various programs and who is not??
I used to work doing Social Security Disability claims and I can tell you the agency spends a HELL of a lot of buying exams to document disability, paying lawyers and claimants travel expenses, paying lawyers their cut of the fees. Paying administrative law judges their salary for the third level appeal, investigating fraud.
I'm just wondering if you totally cut out the administrative costs and just had 1 program how much would that free up for direct payments?
Also say you eliminated farm subsidies how much would that free up?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It would be good for everyone from that income level down (the 12K) but many people who had better jobs and higher costs of living to maintain (like not living in poverty) became disabled and need and deserve more than 12K in disability payments, because they paid a lot more into disability insurance over the course of their working lives.
But...there really should be a basic living income for everyone, regardless of where it comes from...SS, SSD, UBI and minimum wage. Then people can build on top of that to improve their standard of living. A basic income would allow people to get the education they need to improve themselves. It would allow people to live healthier. It would eliminate the desperation that drives so many young unemployed into gangs and drugs. It would help keep people out of jail, and that would save this country a lot of money too.
What I am hearing a lot of in this thread, is will it take more of MY money away, and I don't think it will. Like Universal Health Care, it will reduce overall costs be eliminating money spent on things it shouldn't be spent on.
It seems to be working in Germany, and now Canada is giving it a shot. Some world leader we are.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Easy: cancel the latest toy for the Pentagon.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Ultimately, money is stored work. The only economic issue that really confronts society is how to get enough work out of people so everyone lives relatively well, for a given value of "well." Money is the way we extort more labor from people than we really need, because no one wants to advocate a society where some people work, and others don't.
The problem with the world's economy now, as I see it (and setting aside environmental questions, which are a different, if related, kettle of fish), is the unequal distribution of the fruits of productivity among the world's population, and this is a question TPP and other such trade agreements are ostensibly proposed to address. The problem, however, is that they don't address the question, but instead contribute to the extraction of all that stored work by a small group of people who don't even use most of it for anything but bragging rights. (Which is essentially the same thing you're saying: I'm agreeing with you)
'Twould be a glorious thing if all that stored work could be put to actually doing something, but the problem is that we'd quickly discover the truth that everybody doesn't need to work, and then society has to answer the question of who gets to goof off while its productive members labor in the salt mines. And so long as money equals power, those who have the money are not going to want to disgorge peacefully. Because power is just too damned useful for gratifying all sorts of desires, and for many of the most powerful, there is no such thing as "enough."
-- Mal
jwirr
(39,215 posts)are in danger of becoming poor themselves. Somewhere along the line here we are going to have to bring the 1% to see that their reign cannot continue.
I also think that it may be very hard to make this an international idea. There are a LOT of people in this world and most live in countries that do not have a large body of rich like we do.
One thing though - I think that this kind of program may be cheaper to administer than our current welfare laws where we spend a lot of money checking them out every month.
1939
(1,683 posts)and we can then lay off everyone working in local, state, and federal welfare agencies. Think any union will object to that?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)However, more goes on in a social services office than handing out money. Child abuse investigation, case management for people who cannot take care of their own issues (such as my disabled daughter), oversight of facilities, licensing of facilities and other behind the scenes needs. I don't think the system will fall to pieces if the money part is no longer in it.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)that is supposed to prevent or help or alleviate poverty, but usually only serves as a source of income for unscrupulous organizations, who usually waylay funds intended for the poor to fatten their own behinds.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Basic income would replace the
patchwork quilt of federal subsidies.
Taken as a whole, billions or more
is dispensed through, social security,
food stamps, tax subsidies, etc.
Basic income becomes the main form
of subsidy, eliminating redundancy,
streamlining bureaucracy, and improving efficiency.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)percentage from out wealth and we end up with less and less to use for safety nets. Unless we stop this widening wealth gap, all will be soon lost.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Is it a thing that you can hold in your hand, or is it a symbol of an exchange of value or is it a symbol for energy?
What do you think money is?
A lot of people do not ask themselves this question. But in my view, money is something that represents agreed value.
That makes it easier for me to understand that money cannot really be horded. If too many people horde money and don't spend it, the market, that is the "place" (it isn't a physical place) in which we exchange the symbol that money is for goods or labor or even hope, then in fact the money can become less valuable. That is because for most of us money represents a kind of reward for work, for productive work, for food, for housing, for clothing, for a movie. But in the end, money is a symbol.
We can't run out of money. We can run out of what money "buys." We can also, in this age of automation, run out of work that can earn enough money to feed a family.
But money is a symbol.
I haven't worked out my understanding of this completely or well enough so I look forward to comments on what I am saying.
But money is not something like oatmeal that comes in a box, is finite in amount and will spoil after a certain length of time on the shelf. Money moves and is symbolic in nature, not real. That's why so many people who don't understand about how social interactions work think we should use gold for money.
The secret to money is social. Economics, I have heard, is about why people value things and what values they ascribe to things and work, etc. It's not just a counting game although it is that too.
Any economists wish to comment?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Wealth is the relationship set up when people have different amounts of assets. If everyone had the same amount of assets there would be on concept of wealth. So if we simply print money and give it to the poorest it wouldn't help them if the prices all went up accordingly. So maybe we ask the middle and working classes to settle for a lower standard of living in order to help the poor. This is the conservative plan. Don't mess with the wealth of the upper 1%, but if you want to help the poor, go ahead middle and working classes. This is the Clinton plan. Lower the standards of living of the middle and working classes to raise the standard of living of the poor. So we are talking about socialism for the 99% but leaving the 1% out. The failure of this is obvious to anyone but those living in a conservative denial bubble. Eventually the middle and working classes will meld with the poor to form one class of serfs. This is the Goldman-Sachs / Clinton plan.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Our problem is not with the middle class but with the extremely rich. Those very few at the top that most Americans are unaware of.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)natural resources. And the wealthy were willing to share that wealth with the masses. But it's become harder to create wealth and much easier to steal wealth. For the last 30 years the top 1% Fat Cats have been looting the 99%'s wealth. I can be as simple as not paying taxes, actually GE and other get a net refund from the taxpayers. Other ways of stealing our wealth are like via war or crises, natural or man made. Read Shock Doctrine. The easiest way for the top 1% to steal our wealth is a bank crisis. 5 trillion moved from the 99% to the 1% in a matter of days. If we don't stop this, the lower 99% will die.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)and take it back! D'oh. That's exactly where it is coming from. Once was the time on DU when the whole freaking place was crawling with anger over the Bush tax cuts. Guess you aren't a long timer.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Right now we allow banks to borrow money from the fed and then turn around and loan out that exact same money for a huge amount of profit. Why don't we keep that profit and use it for the benefit of all? The banks have shown themselves to be unreliable, irresponsible and inefficient.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of helping those among us struggling needs to explain a plan for financing those programs. The Conservative (The Third Way) Wing of our party say they want to help struggling Americans but not at the expense of the 1%. In other words Clinton's plans for helping people in the 99% is to move money from one part to another part. Level out the standard of living thru-out the 99% but never touch the wealth of the 1%.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)it's not simply about giving poor people money, but giving everyone the same non-means-tested access to the basic necessities of human existence, thereby removing the contentious class and racial divisions surrounding anti-poverty programs. at least it should be thus
Fuck money.
What everyone needs, is an equitable share of the earth's resources, and a guarantee to a comfortable, secure existence.
clarice
(5,504 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)A certain amount of labor is required to produce a certain standard of living. Our economic system evolved to facilitate that amount of labor being produced. Those who believe that system has miscarried (and they are legion) need to figure out how to produce that labor when the imminent fear of starvation is no longer hanging over everyone's head. So how much utility one thinks this idea would have ultimately depends on whether or not they think sufficient labor would be willingly found, or must be extorted by one means or another.
-- Mal
clarice
(5,504 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Money is not the question, the real question is how to produce and distribute the fruits of labor. The answer to "where would the money come from" is "from where it has always come."
-- Mal
clarice
(5,504 posts)pberq
(2,950 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Theory informs practicality. There are plenty of practical answers to your question, and they've already been enumerated in this thread. But if you are interested in the larger theoretical question, then you have to first define money, and even define what you mean by "where is it coming from" and "where is it going." Money itself is not a real thing, it does not have a finite, tangible extent or value. And no, you needn't point out that it is something that can have finite, tangible effects, I mean real as it is used when talking about property and objects. Money is not real property, and has never been seen as such.
-- Mal
clarice
(5,504 posts)In re-reading a few of your economic posts... I am reminded of the socialist pablum that we had to read in college.
The terminology, the dialectical vague responses to forthright, real world questions....it's all there. And in spite of the
repeated failure of that economic world view wherever it has been implemented, (not to mention the death of millions of people)
some people still can not give up the fantasy.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)I always follow Rose Macauley on that question. But as far as socialist pablum is concerned, what would you? If we start from a position that capitalism is flawed for any of several reasons, then any argument that is not capitalist runs the risk of sounding like pablum of one sort or another, especially if one thinks the benefits of capitalism outweigh the detriments.
Right now, huge masses of capital are held out of circulation. Do you dispute this? Now, Braudel tells us that wealth comes from circulation. Do you dispute this? One dollar goes from hand to hand, paying for various commodities, and thus wealth is created. But what is that wealth, other than people working to create things? Food, shelter, smartphones: all are created by work. Now, how do we get people to work? Or, to put a finer point on it, how do we get people to work harder than they may want to for their food, shelter, and smartphones? Traditionally, the answer has been by letting them starve if they don't. I'd suggest that there are a few things wrong with that answer, especially as we may well be coming to a point where that answer is no longer viable, due to automation on the one hand, and environmental decay on the other. You know Thomas Malthus? He's the inspiration for my alias. Whatever you might think of Braudel, no one could accuse Malthus of being a socialist, since he died when Marx was only 16. Now, Malthus argued that population would always grow to exceed food supply, and thus periodic famines were Nature's way of putting the brakes on. Then along came tremendous advances in agricultural productivity, and the good doctor was considered to be out of date, that his conclusions were faulty because society would always find the technical answer to the problem. But what if he wasn't wrong, what if a law of diminishing returns applies, what if human society can't evade the strictures of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that we can only hope to put off the day of reckoning for awhile? If your attitude is something along the lines of "I don't care, so long as it happens after I'm dead," then "Screw everyone else, I got mine" is the way to go. If your attitude is something else, then it might occur that some alternative to the way things have always been done is a good idea, and the sooner the better.
It is possible to think that humanity is headed for a terrible die-off without being a faithful adherent of some economic "ism" that really isn't relevant anyway. Hey, it might even be possible to believe this is the best of all possible worlds without being a faithful adherent of capitalism. But let's assume one believes that certain adjustments are necessary for the most efficient operation of the human social engine, then it becomes a question of when and how much, doesn't it? In that context, the UPI is simply the answer "a whole lot" to the second question. The answer to the first may well be, "If not now, when, if not us, who?" Your answers may vary, but that is why we have horse races after all.
-- Mal
clarice
(5,504 posts)Yes, I am very familiar with Malthus...and perhaps he had a,nd has taken a lot of heat for his pronouncements, but
one can't seriously abjure all of his claims, especially in the light of today's world. That said, I believe that the negative effects of Socialism/Communism far out weigh the negatives of Capitalism. By the very fact that production is largely in the hands of individuals as opposed to the State, people in theory anyway, somewhat hold their futures in their own hands. It happens here everyday, under our system, that someone becomes wealthy either through a unique new idea, or sacrifice and hard work. While there are certainly flaws in Smith's "invisible hand theory", it does afford the opportunity for bettering ones economic position.
I fear that S/C isms do not offer the same incentives. And no, Malthus was no Socialist.
I am ALL for a Country as prosperous as America to provide a safety net for the elderly and infirm, but I am afraid our "net" is being stretched way beyond it's capabilities by those who for whatever reason, refuse to play by the rules of our Society.
To your point of TD... Carnot was certainly on to something.. but I'll bet that he didn't realize at the time, that his Laws
could be applied to social structure and economics. Quite a brainy guy was Carnot.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... which is, after all, what this thread is about.
We can argue about the failures of socialism in the real world, but I expect that we are closer to the same page than otherwise. If we stipulate that the soi-disant "democratic socialism" or "social democracy" or whatever is really not particularly socialist at all, in that it leaves most production in the hands of individuals (except for utilities, which is another thing we could fight about), and only regulates the hell out of them. But when speaking of the "failure" of socialism world-wide, I often wonder if some points are being evaded or downplayed. For instance, the most spectacular economic failure of socialism, the USSR, was subject to the die-off of some 20 million people, most from the youngest, most productive demos, and the destruction of a huge percentage of its industrial capacity as a result of WWII, and then diverted an unsustainable portion of its GDP to keeping up in the Cold War with a country that had escaped WWII virtually unscathed. Yet this is never considered when denouncing the USSR (as an economic entity) as a failure. And the fact may be that the US wrecked itself in the process, just all the chickens have yet to come home to roost. How's your social security looking these days? Where would it be if our government hadn't pissed it away on guns and bombs, eh?
But the central thing wrong with the whole capitalist/socialist debate, IMO, is that they are really brothers under the skin, in that they both see humans in economic terms, and the good only in material terms. If making toys was all it was about, then unregulated capitalism is unmatched in its power, but it might just be that there is more to life than owning the latest iPhone. And our society in the US, in its pursuit of more and better stuff, has become poorer thereby. And then there's that Second Law, which makes one question if the old model is sustainable, even if it were attainable. Yet no serious candidate for high office in this country would raise that question, not if he valued his professional life.
Which leads us back, perhaps, to the UPI. Now, I've heard it said that socialism is nothing more than a way to spread the misery equally. Very well, then what is capitalism but a way of spreading it unequally? Traditionally, capitalism addresses this question by accusing the miserable of not being worthy. But as more and more become miserable because capitalism as practiced is becoming toxic, that argument loses some of its force. Ah, but one may protest that hard work should be rewarded. Setting aside, for the nonce, that most people work hard and are not rewarded, one inconvenient question remains: how much is "enough?" Given that the winners of the economic lottery have been squirreling ridiculous sums offshore, given that some of the most once-fervent advocates of "trickle down" are starting to admit that it doesn't work and never has, then what do we do to redress the balance? The whole shtick in the past 40 or so years has been to give the wealthy more, so they would share the wealth out of the goodness of their hearts. If that turns out not to have worked, actually, then shouldn't we stop giving them more?
Which leads us to the question of why, if we give that wealth to everyone indiscriminately, they would work (out of the good of their hearts) to provide for everyone else. One could be forgiven for being skeptical about that, although there is some evidence here and there that it pays off. But mostly it is a great unknown, because we have no record of it being done on a large scale. Truly socialist societies have only existed on a small scale, and are always rubbing up against aggressive societies that want to control or destroy everything. Whether or not their failure is a necessary consequence of the system, therefore, is still an unanswered question. After all, since the Cold War, any society that was more than marginally socialist has had to fight the Free World (tm). It's rather hard to see how they could succeed under those circumstances.
Of course, Adam Smith was terribly uncomfortable with the "hidden hand" theory, and did some interesting things with it in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which should be required reading for anyone who hopes to understand him. One might say that his common sense and understanding of human nature inclined him to believe that the species was depraved, but because he actually did believe in a benevolent Creator, he had to apply himself to figuring out a way to balance that. David Hume had it so much easier in that respect.
-- Mal
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)our collective selves.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)I'd probably spend my time getting drunk and playing video games.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's literally the point.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)That's literally the point.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Pay me about $25/hour and I'll pick up trash. If we had a minimum income and people didn't *have to* work, shit-paying jobs would have to stop be shit-paying. (*and if we had a minimum income, you don't have to pay me the full $25, just the difference between that and the minimum.)
Honestly picking up trash is a totally decent profession, and one I would be willing to do.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)Money will be headed towards worthless at this point anyway if everyone gets enough to live comfortably for doing nothing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Supply and demand; it's a fairly well-known concept.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)And probably not unless you are making significantly more.
Sounds like this basic income will have to be basically nothing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Everyone, even Bill Gates, gets it. Period.
If you want me to work for you, you have to offer enough money for me to want to leave the couch for it.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)as to be meaningless.
clarice
(5,504 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)can we agree that $600/month in ssdi is inadequate?
clarice
(5,504 posts)MUST supply a safety net for the disabled, elderly, and the infirm. It's the able bodied who choose NOT
to work that I have a problem with.
hunter
(38,326 posts)... and those few who exist have unknown problems. In a suitable environment they might blossom, or at least be somewhat functional.
Someone like Paul Erdos was a dysfunctional human being with a talent for math so our society allowed him to comfortably exist. But a talent doesn't have to be great, rare, or special. Some other person might have a talent for picking up litter, maybe not so much as a "professional" on-the-clock litter-picker-upper would, but enough that they are satisfied harmlessly wandering around picking up some litter every day. There's no reason a person like that should have to suffer, no reason unemployment and unemployability to be punished.
The homeless people who live down by the creek near my home are unemployed and unemployable for many reasons. None of them are lazy. Being poor and homeless is hard work.
But even when you clean them up, get them sober and/or taking their crazy-meds (I can say crazy-meds because I take crazy-meds...) most are still unemployable in modern society, at least in any conventional manner. You do not want them picking your strawberries; not as a farmer, not as a consumer of strawberries.
Healthy people of all abilities really do want to be part of a working community, even if it's a community of dysfunctional or rejected people like themselves. That's why unemployed and under-educated young people join gangs, that's why addicts and mentally ill people end up congregating on skid row. Humans are social creatures.
clarice
(5,504 posts)In every society, there are going to be outlliers. Some on the cusp of genius, some in the lower economical/educated stratum.
These extremes will occur in most societies. The questions is......how willing/able are those outliers to conform to what we would all consider productive entities, and how far most society acquiesce to accept their behavior as within the norm.
hunter
(38,326 posts)Extracting and refining fossil fuels, for example, is destroying the natural environment that supports all human beings. Sure, this work pays well, but it is ultimately destructive, not "productive." Fossil fuels are killing and crippling people now, today. Eventually they are likely to kill off a large fraction of the human population by the mechanism of global warming which will cause destructive climate changes and rising sea levels.
Likewise, building war machines to protect the strong relationship between oil "production" and the U.S. dollar is not actually productive work, nor are any wars.
Paying people to live low energy, low resource intensive lifestyles is better than paying them to live high energy very resource intensive lifestyles.
I don't believe people need cars or highways or parking lots or big-box stores to be happy. They simply need safe comfortable housing, a nice pedestrian friendly community, healthy food and water, educational opportunities, and appropriate health care. Assured of these necessities most people will find innovative, truly productive things to do, and those few who can't will be less likely to get into trouble.
Punishing the unemployed and the unemployable with deprivation and socially sanctioned violence (violence by rotten police especially) does not make our world a better place.
clarice
(5,504 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The reality is that there aren't always jobs available for everyone, and it's too expensive for poor people to move where jobs are.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Wages for work should be much, much, much better than living on welfare. The fact that today's wages are competitive with welfare benefits, so that people working forty plus hours a week and people on welfare have the same quality of life is completely perverse. I don't know why you think a custodial job should pay "basically nothing", unless you have internalized a perspective that denigrates and devalues labor.
ChazInAz
(2,572 posts)That's enough to invalidate one's arguments in a debate.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Amazing how all that supply and demand free market stuff goes out the window when it's inconvenient.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)do custodial work MUCH more than any politician....however...your phrase.. "If we had a minimum
income, and people didn't have to work" grates my spine like nothing else.
hunter
(38,326 posts)Wealthier slobs will have to clean up their own shit too.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)and the indoor mall.
hunter
(38,326 posts)Every job has to be a nice job in an environment where anyone can tell a bad boss to "take this job and shove it!"
Custodial jobs can be good work, but there's more good in making the very wealthy clean up after themselves on both the micro-economic scale and the macro-economic scale. Let them take out their own damned trash and clean their own damned toilets. If they own a coal mine, make them live in it. If they pollute the water, make them drink it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)They would have the UBI AND the income from the job. That's more money that the guy who collects UBI then sits around drunk playing video games all day.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But you're trying to make a point, even if it's a dull one, so please, carry on.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)At least you could offer some sound reasoning for your objection, or better idea.
Instead you bring willful ignorance and an obtuse line of reasoning.
Bonx
(2,075 posts)Same ol song.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I don't think it's a matter of agreement so much as that you offered nothing with which to agree or disagree. Your "argument" was completely nonexistent.
Perhaps if you explain your reasoning for your position and/or offer an alternative you find more palatable your position could be given more weight.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Not only is it viable, but every time it's been implemented it's been a huge success.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Obviously, the only way to find out it to give it a shot and see if it flies. Or, as Alan Shepard put it, "Light this fucking candle."
-- Mal
Phlem
(6,323 posts)You and the rest of the Republicans could fight this and stop it.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Classic.
I was born in a dirt floor in an armpit of another country. The only reason I am where I am is because my mother married a fucking Republican dick. You think I got any fucking handouts? On the contrary, I busted my ass to get where I am. I saved and paid to put myself through college and learn computer technology only to have my job offshored within 4 years. I've been struggling ever since.
I was here the first time Hillary pulled this same shit, you weren't.
Please excuse me for having more empathy and seeing a different way than you.
I do know what party supports your view. You should go join them.
clarice
(5,504 posts)otherwise, you might still be in the armpit. Just as you, I was born into poverty, but through hard work and sacrifice,
I started my own company and became quite prosperous.
I wish you well in your journey.
ps Not everyone who disagrees with your world view can and shouldn't be labeled a Republican. That's kind
of a cheap shot..and beneath you.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
clarice
(5,504 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts).99center
(1,237 posts)Is that you obviously have no clue what the article and idea is Why else would the poster above have to point out to you that "They would have the UBI AND the income from the job" Maybe you should read the article and grasp the basic concept of the idea before you try to belittle the poor and tear down progressive ideas.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Automation will soon eliminate literally millions of jobs. We absolutely need a basic minimum income.
Many are out of work and basically unemployable who don't qualify for disability or unemployment, and this will increasingly get worse.
There's nothing at all about this idea that's laughable. And it validates everyone's basic humanity, rather than a dystopian dog-eat-dog world that competitively accelerates society into destroying the very planet it exists on.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In the debates of the 1990s on Welfare Reform, one of the problems they found with the Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC) was that when a person on welfare wanted to work, they would LOSE benefits more then the job would bring in income. If there were NO loss in benefits, more people in welfare would look for work. Congress addressed this problem by reducing the reduction in benefits rate to 50% from the previous 33 1/3%. It was some help, but not much.
Studies involving Social Security Disability recipients had the same results, if there was a loss in benefits if someone went to work, you had less people looking for work then if they was NO loss in benefits. When SS adopted the nine months trial work period (Which for nine months you can work and NOT lose your SS Disability benefits), SSA found a HUGE number of people on Disability taking jobs to see if they could do that job.
Yes, there are people who want to lay on the beach and collect food stamps, but they are so rare that it took FOX months to find such a person, and then only found one (no one else could find any).
My point is the people who have ACTUALLY worked in this field, basically have found that people on Welfare what to work, but also do not want to lose their benefits. The system even today PUNISH such people if they decide to work. My favorite rule on Welfare, is if you are over paid, even of it is the fault of the GOVERNMENT, you have to pay it back, and that payback is done by reducing future benefits. You can get forgiveness of an over-payment of Unemployment, Social Security, SS, and even for failing to pay taxes, BUT NOT FOR ANY WELFARE OVER-PAYMENT EVEN IF THE OVER-PAYMENT IS THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNMENT. That is how bad people on welfare are treated. The purpose is to save Government Money, even if it cost the Government more money then they are saving.
This is not new, the main reason the US embraced Separation of Church and State in the 1790s was to reduce Welfare costs. Welfare prior to the 1790s was run by the Churches. The States, to reduce costs, disestablished the Churches. The state claimed it was to separate Church from State, but the real reason was to end welfare payments to widows and orphans. The States adopted a policy of sending such Widows and Orphans to the frontier to steal lands from the First American, rather them give them money to survive on. The South embraced this move first and thus disestablished their churches in the 1790s. Massachusetts did not do it till 1837, during the next "Great Depression" in American History and for the same reasons, to free the state from paying welfare. New York City was still shipping widows and orphans out west as late as the 1920s, when the Western States put a stop to it, by shipping them back (This is believed to be how Billy the Kid went from New York City to New Mexico in the 1880s).
When most people lived on the farm, if your home was taken from you, either by your landlord for failing to pay rent, by the bank for failing to pay the Mortgage, or by the Government for failing to pay taxes, you were entitled to harvest any crop planted on that farm. This was to guarantee you food and income to start over. It was the Courts accepting the concept of making sure people had a basic income.
I bring this up for the concept is NOT new, it is very old and has worked in the past. It is only in the last 200 years that people have adopted the concept that they are people who will NOT work if they were given a basic living allowance. This is found first in urban areas, then after the Great Depression the rest of the nation. In most urban areas the concept was tied in with breaking strikes (and the main reason the concept has been rejected). If strikers had money to fall back on, a strike could last for months, but of they had to live paycheck to paycheck, workers are reluctant to go on strike. In such situation a Basic Income would encourage workers to go on strike, for they basic needs would be taken care of by the basic income. Thus the 1% hate the idea of Basic Income for it encourages strikes and they keep repeating all the bad things you hear about basic income for the 1% does NOT want to say WHY they oppose it, for most people will say that is a GOOD reason for a basic income (i.e. encourage strikes by making sure strikers will have their basic needs meet). This is why the 1% hate Social Security, for as people need their retirement age, they start to tell their employers "What is the worse thing you can do to me? Retire me?". The 1% hate retirement plans, for it strengthens workers, especially workers who can retire. The 1% hate welfare programs (and strikers as a rule can NOT get Welfare OR unemployment benefits) and sets up Welfare Program so to punish workers and worker's children whose spouse goes on strike.
Yes, the above is all tied in with basic income, for it strengthens the 99% for with a basic income the 99% can quit or go on strike AND STILL FEED THEIR FAMILIES.
By the way Congress has set the Minimum amount needed to survive at $733 a month. This is called the "Standard of Need". The "Standard of Need" is what Social Security Administration (SSA) pays out in the Supplement Security Income (SSI) program. SSI is reduced by any other source of income including any Social Security one may be entitled to.
The Federal Government will match dollar for dollar what any state will pay anyone on Transitional Aid to Needy Families (TANF, it replaced AFDC in 1994) up to that amount. NO STATE HAS EVEN SET ITS WELFARE GRANT TO THAT LEVEL (and that includes from the days the program was known as "AFDC" i.e. from the 1960s till today). Every state PAYS LESS then "Standard of Need". In my home county it is $174 a month, the state pays $87, the Federal Government pays $87 (if the state would agree to pay $366 a month for one person, the Feds would pay $366). Now people on Welfare only get one check and that is from the State, but the Fed reimburse the State its half of the payment.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)toilets or picks up trash gets UBI + $x where x > 0
Someone who just gets drunk and plays video games all day gets UBI + $0
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)it would also cause a hiring surge in video game creating and alcohol making industries, which would require a huge surge for fabricators and welders to make all the brewing/distilling equipment, which would boost manufacturing of machining equipment, filler metals, shielding gases, etc.
Trickle down never worked, but if you give poor people money and it radiates outward almost immediately.
Trickle up works quote well...
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Circulation creates wealth. That's why holding so much money in offshore accounts where it does nothing is such an insidious thing, it takes all that cash out of circulation.
-- Mal
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Die young therefor saving money in the long run...
Politicub
(12,165 posts)If that's what you want out of life - your version of the pursuit of happiness - then I say have at it. There's enough room for people of all stripes on this planet.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)Just Americans.
clarice
(5,504 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts) Politicub
(12,165 posts)I'm not an economist nor a public policy expert. Your concern would be better answered by one of those folks.
I support the UBI in principle based on the coming displacement of jobs by technology.
But I'm not the right person to say whether or not it will work.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)You wouldn't be able to sit home and bum around unless if you wanted to live an extremely meager lifestyle.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)... and food generally.
Maybe around $600 a month.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Studio apartments in Minneapolis START at more than that.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)There would probably be a special class of housing that would need to be developed to support people who only made the basic income amount.
You have to look at a basic income program in its entirety for it to make sense.
For some it's just enough money to free them from a full-time menial job so they can start a business or get some needed education.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)that goes in the "just saying" category.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Something like:
A person gets "Guaranteed Income"
Anything beyond that is "Extra" and for Wealth Building?
I definitely can see some interesting positive side-effects on that.
It would be nice to see, though I don't think it workable at the moment.
It really would be an interesting social experiment.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But the politics got too toxic.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)In balance with his stances in the Environment and many others, I am quite shocked at how progressive some of his ideas were.
I wouldn't doubt this for a minute either.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Yeah he was corrupt and bigoted but the New Deal consensus was still in effect and thus his policy proposals had to jive with that.
Keep in mind that most of his Presidency was prior to the Powell Memo.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)It is odd how corruption at that time became the normal modus operandi of the present day.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)This isnt perfect but it illustrates a point:
Technology is changing the world faster than economies can grow and lift people out of poverty. And in places like America where the majority of jobs are service industry and consumer facing, automation will make a huge percentage of the population permanently unemployed.
The options are accepting a dystopian version of what we currently have, with mass unemployment and a ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, or finding a new way to organize society.
Abundance breaks supply and demand and at some point so many aspects of our economy will be broken by abundance.
We the workers need to start demanding more meaningful options... Not just slightly different rungs on a broken ladder.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Thanks for the video, it covers what I have been telling people for years. Maybe they'll be more willing to listen to this then me.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Know that this idea is a LOT further along than you might know.
http://www.basicincome.org/
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)Most of the people already know these things. They're not idiots. These people need jobs, not to be talked down to. They don't have to be told not to buy crack with what money they have. That's silly.
I wouldn't even say a basic income is the answer. These people need jobs.
Of course, there are going to be people who loaf around, and people who snort the cash up their nose. I'm not opposed to drug testing for this sort of thing. The vast majority, however, want to work and want stable lives.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)what job?
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... there are a good few reasons why that present construction may not be just sub-optimal, but toxic.
-- Mal
.99center
(1,237 posts)How's that working in Florida and other states? Let's divert money for the those in need to drug testing company's to prove that the poor have secret $100 a day coke habits. Why stop there, I don't want my tax dollars going to addicts, any of it! Anyone receiving a subsidy of any sort should be tested extensively!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Secondly, it looks like based on technology there might not be jobs in the future. What do we do with idle people?
think
(11,641 posts)Just in case:
pberq
(2,950 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/why-should-we-support-the_b_7630162.html
Why Should We Support the Idea of Universal Basic Income?
(snip)
By guaranteeing everyone has at the very least, the minimum amount of voice with which to speak in the marketplace for basic goods and services, we can make sure that the basics needs of life — those specific and universally important to all goods and services like food and shelter — are being created and distributed more efficiently. It makes no sense to make sure 100% of the population gets exactly the same amount of bread. Some may want more than others, and some may want less. It also doesn’t make sense to only make bread for 70% of the population, thinking that is the true demand for bread, when actually 80% of the population wants it, but 10% have zero means to voice their demand in the market. Bread makers would happily sell more bread and bread eaters would happily buy more bread. It’s a win-win to more accurately determine just the right amount.
And that’s basic income. It’s a win-win for the market and those who comprise the market. It’s a way to improve on capitalism and even democracy, by making sure everyone has the minimum amount of voice. . .
hunter
(38,326 posts)Someone who can afford adequate shelter, healthy food, appropriate medical care, and a good education, but not an automobile or a giant air-conditioned McMansion, is doing less damage to the planet than anyone who can.
Everyone needs to chill out, quit participating in the high energy fossil-fueled industrial economy, and use birth control.
Traditional human "work ethics" are causing a rare mass extinction event on this planet earth that will eventually destroy our newly born international economy and world civilization.
EllieBC
(3,041 posts)Just because you are poor without a job or working poor doesn't mean you don't want shiny new toys or won't buy them when you are able to. Unless you are going to make it so these people cannot. Which makes you an authoritarian control freak.
hunter
(38,326 posts)
EllieBC
(3,041 posts)Humans like things. Humans buy things when they can. A UBI isn't going to stop that.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)It is possible to conceive of a society where dying with the most toys does not constitute success. As Thomas Reid pointed out some years ago, people really are more interested in status than anything. Currently, society is so constituted that status is equated with possessions, but it might be possible to have a society where status is determined by other values. Indeed, not only possible, but it has even happened: the Kwakiutl come to mind. And before you point out that the Kwakiutl are no longer, may I suggest that their extinction was not a necessary consequence of their culture, whereas ours may well be?
-- Mal
hunter
(38,326 posts)Reading or writing a book does less damage to the natural environment than driving a car to work. I don't know how much fossil fuel is burned supporting each of my posts on DU, but I hope it's not a lot. My own computer setup, from the phone line through my computer, burns less than twenty watts. That's much lower than it was back in the days of computers with big, bulky 100 watt CRT monitors and desktop computers with fans and spinning metal hard drives .
By some planning and good fortune my wife and I have avoided the automobile commuter lifestyle since the mid 'eighties.
I rather resent the fact that I have to own a car to be considered a functional adult in most of the U.S.A. so I drive a thirty year old car with a salvage title, doing the best I can not to contribute to the manufacture of any new cars. My car is in good running order, has a catalytic converter, and it's not especially polluting because I only fill the tank with gasoline every other month or two, whether it needs it or not. Most days I don't drive.
When my wife and I met we were Los Angeles commuters. It frequently took us more than an hour to drive less than twenty miles in our commutes. That's a lot of time wasted, much fossil fuel burned, much air polluted.
I can think of a million things I'd rather do than go shopping. I buy food, most of it local, I buy clothing, about half new and half from the thrift stores. All of my electronic goodies were somebody else's garbage except for a Raspberry Pi I bought about a year ago to familiarize myself with ARM microprocessors. (Rooting Android devices doesn't thrill me; just give me something I can run Debian on. No, I don't do Windows or anything else Microsoft.)
Of course I'm a hypocrite because I live in a house with a refrigerator, washing machine, and dryer because those are things my wife can afford and won't do without.
My own natural off-my-meds state is invisible-dumpster-diving-homeless-person. Fortunately I've always had friends and family to look after me. As I've looked after others. At my lowest point I was living in a broken car in a church parking lot, and later in a backyard garden shed belonging to a PTSD Vietnam war veteran.
Anyways, it's easy to be happy without buying lots of stuff. Sadly, most people don't know how. They've been trained by this society to be "consumers," they've been trained to be "productive."
Unfortunately this "economic productivity" as we now define it is destroying the natural environment that supports all humanity and our own human spirit. Most of us suffer work that does not make the world a better place, or else we suffer "unemployment."
It doesn't have to be that way. Money is an entirely human invention and we can modify and regulate it's use any way we choose, preferably by democratic means, in ways that increase our happiness as a people, and decrease the damage we do to the natural environment.
EllieBC
(3,041 posts)Again, you're projecting just as much as any capitalist. Some people like to shop. Some people like to hike. Some people like to play video games. Some like to cook. Some like to do all the above.
Assuming someone who is poor doesn't want to do anything besides sit home and naval gaze is insulting.
UBI doesn't stand a chance if you insist on telling people how they should best live their lives. They get enough of that from religious fundamentalists. They don't need to be told from the other side too.
hunter
(38,326 posts)No, I'm telling you how I live, and a few of my reasons for that.
I very sincerely believe economic "growth" as we now define it is a bad thing, especially from the perspective of any species we humans are driving, or have driven, to extinction. I'd hate to be an elephant or an orangutan.
Our current economy is unsustainable. The demonstration will be in it's collapse or radical restructuring.
I think a radical restructuring is the preferable path but it's not going to happen if we remain in the rut of nineteenth and twentieth century economic theory, or worse, even older maladaptive religious theologies.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)It was an exposé of the so-called "welfare hotels," in which the city of New York paid the owners of flea bag hotels up to $2000 a month to house families on welfare. A parent and kids would share a single room that might or might not have its own bathroom. For which the owner of the building collected $2000 a month from the city of New York. Per room.
The article pointed out that just GIVING the family $2000 a month would have (in the 1970s) allowed them to rent a good apartment anywhere in the city and do everything else a family needs to do. (For the record, I lived on $500 a month as a graduate student in nearby New Haven during that period and rarely felt deprived.)
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... that when the ruling class trusts its own to do the right thing, they tend to make a terrible hash of it, whereas when the poor are trusted to do what's best for themselves, they tend to be more prudent? "Trickle down" has been with us in more ways than most people are aware for longer than most people are aware.
-- Mal
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)there's a guy here in cleveland stands by the side of the exit ramp off the innerbelt with a homeless sign needing money and people stop and give him cash and food etc. 10days or so ago i saw him laying on the grass by the overpass on payne ave his friend was trying to help him get up but couldnt . i calld 911 for a medic to come get him they guy was passed out drunk still clutching a tall can of beer
i know this is a i-know-a-guy story but it's naive to think that people dont or wont
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Would you deny him this based on the fact that he drinks?
Javaman
(62,534 posts)they think the world revolves around them and anyone else not living their life style is already a failure.
amazing, isn't it?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)And I believe in general the cost to society as a whole would be minimal, certainly as opposed to the alternative. I've read some critiques suggesting that such programs would encourage long term unemployment and relative poverty. However, it seems to me that misses the point that the trend of automation in the workplace, if such projections are accurate, will lead to a similar but far more destructive outcome.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Then other people should not have to provide his means to the basic necessities of life.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Across many contexts and continents, experimental tests show that the poor don’t stop trying when they are given money, and they don’t get drunk. Instead, they make productive use of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and investing in businesses and their own futures. Even a short-term infusion of capital has been shown to significantly improve long-term living standards, improve psychological well-being, and even add one year of life.
people approach me asking for money i give it when i can and i dont care why they want it
subterranean
(3,427 posts)Would you quit a job that pays $40,000 or $50,000 a year so you could live on $12,000 a year and do nothing? I wouldn't, but as you said, I'm sure there are some people who would be content to live on the basic income rather than work a shit job that pays shit wages with no benefits. And that's probably a good thing, if the predictions about robots and AI eliminating most jobs in the not-too-distant future are correct. There will be fewer people competing for the few jobs that are left.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)It appears that "I know a guy" stories are only valid when they prove people would prefer not to work. I dunno, I know a lot of guys who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they didn't have work, I know people who work harder than people with work to find work. I have no idea what the relative percentages would be, since a personal sample pool is always likely to be heavily biased, but I do know that productivity keeps climbing, and someday we're just not going to have room for more Starbucks to provide jobs. Then what? Let 'em die?
-- Mal
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)to make 15k-20k i might
what you said about robots and ai is a good point i hadnt thought of
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)No one should work three jobs and still live in poverty.
hunter
(38,326 posts)
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)
astrophuss42
(290 posts)It's gonna be a very dystopian future.
pberq
(2,950 posts)https://medium.com/basic-income/basic-income-on-the-march-a-month-in-review-3466b9964259#.x5791od92
Basic Income on the March (a month in review)
Basic income as a global movement around an idea is officially spreading like wildfire. According to Google Trends, interest in the idea has quadrupled just in the past three months.
. . .
To start off, probably the biggest news in March was the addition of Canada to the countries looking at experimenting with basic income, hopefully sometime later this year. This was followed soon after by Scotland’s SNP party’s decision to consider basic income in an independent Scotland, and then New Zealand’s Labor Party after that. Nigeria also had some rumblings, as did Namibia. Finally, Finland completed its preliminary report for its basic income experiment plans, with the final report due in November.
Also, in case you missed it, back in February a bill was introduced in Vermont’s state legislature to setup up a commission to “study and analyze the adoption of universal basic income in Vermont.”
(more at link)
byronius
(7,401 posts)Absolutely logical. Great for the entire country. It would truly benefit everyone.
The only drawback is that the wealthy would feel less better-than-everyone without the sight of human suffering. For some, the agony of others with less is what they base their self-esteem on. And that's disgustingly grotesque and barbaric.
Really, it's vastly sensible. Good for America.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)I think it is possible that schadenfreude is the single most important motivating factor for the "I got mine, screw everyone else" faction. Far more important than most realize, including Bernie Sanders, who seems to have a curious blind spot about it.
-- Mal
DaveT
(687 posts)It was called the negative income tax and it was dreamed up by Milton Friedman.
Politics as a whole has shifted so far the right that Nixon occupied a spot on the spectrum to the left of today's Democratic Socialist.
Richard D
(8,763 posts). . . when you consider the fact that automation is taking over a great many jobs, with no new jobs being created. We're soon to see almost the entire ground transportation system automated. How many jobs will be lost when trucks, trains, taxis, etc. are the norm? How many other jobs related to these will also be lost? The number is staggering. Robots will be taking over much of the manufacturing sector as well. We're at the beginning stages of a new world, and the old models will no longer apply.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Frankly money is the problem. As long as we structure society around money, things will not change. Sadly though, most people cannot conceive of a world without money.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The "problem" right now is surplus.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)But I do know that we have so many extremely smart and wise people on this planet the if the wealthy would get the fuck out of the way we could solve this.
There were successful cultures in the past who did not use money/ownership.
People are quick to say it can't be done, but we have never really tried.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)of politicians and "think tank types", I feel that these are the LAST people that I would
trust with my financial future.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I am talking about scientists, professors.... we have a huge pool of intelligence that gets wasted on bullshit.
clarice
(5,504 posts)
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Already the auto assembly plants employ more robots than people. ATMs, self-serve cashiers, Roombas, on-line shopping . . . all take thousands of jobs from people. Maybe this is a good thing. But how does our economy work when machines can do virtually every job humans can do? People won't need to work to produce all the necessities of life. How will people pay for those necessities, though, when we don't have, and eventually CAN'T trade our labor for them?
zalinda
(5,621 posts)Those against it think that people will get drunk and play video games, which is far from the truth. Yeah, some will be slackers, but the vast majority will contribute back to society. Those families who have parents who have up to 5 part time jobs, could now have the one parent stay home and take care of the kids, the other parent could work a job to save up for whatever extra is needed. Those who have bodies falling a part could now either volunteer or work a part time job, for the extras. I am disabled and could never work even a part time job, but I knit and sew, so others can have warm items in the winter. People who have sick children or relatives could now stay home and take care of them.
We have to realize that there just are not as many jobs out there that is needed to support the population. People like to work, it is in our DNA. If we didn't like to work, there would be no volunteers. People need to be productive. I don't know how any one can sit and do nothing all day long.
Z
Btw, my sister was a garbage collector and loved the job.
clarice
(5,504 posts)are you just hoping that that is true? No offense meant.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Do you have statistics demonstrating that they won't?
-- Mal
clarice
(5,504 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)but in my experience, people are good and want to contribute. I will be going to a get together at a fire station to sew quilts for a group that gives them away. I don't have to and neither do the 20 to 30 other people who will be there. I have found that if you give them a chance, people step up and do the right thing.
Z
clarice
(5,504 posts)PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)It really does make the most sense.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)Medicine Hat: http://www.theplaidzebra.com/a-city-in-canada-tried-giving-free-housing-to-the-homeless-and-its-working/
Other countries have followed suit, with the Obama administration listing the method as a best practice for eliminating chronic homelessness, and Finland and France both instituting similar measures.
Medicine Hat: http://www.mhchs.ca/
Medicine Hat: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/15/medicine-hat-homeless_n_5332531.html
“And now I’ve become their advocate and have to admit it’s the right thing to do, it’s the moral thing to do. And it makes sense financially,” he said.
“If you can get somebody off the street, it saves the emergency room visits, it saves the police, it saves the justice system — and so when you add up all those extra costs … you can buy a lot of housing for that amount of money.”
And once people are housed, it’s easier for support workers to help them with a co-ordinated delivery of social services to address issues such as substance abuse and mental health problems, Clugston said.
Utah: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
Almost free housing in San Francisco ($375 avg): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Housing_Partnership
Still think it is a stupid idea worthy of a sarcasm tag?
Or is it a progressive idea proven to work that is worthy of more serious consideration than you are willing to give it?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)This has been proven multiple times.
What is the biggest barrier to getting a job: having an address and having a place to live, to shower, to rest. Give people a place to live and a large number (half?) end up getting jobs and paying for their own place to live.
You save tax dollars for fewer emergency room visits, fewer police interactions, less crime against and by homeless people, less court costs, less mental health care, better nutrition, longer lives, more productivity, less wasted education dollars, ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/13/housing-first-federal-election_n_7949510.html . . . Excerpt:
"He said, 'Why don't we try getting these people into apartments, regular apartments, provide them the psychiatric medical and mental health support that they need and see if it works?' And it did," explains Richter. "It's taken off from there."
It's also become a bipartisan success story because you can help people and save money doing it. The political right has taken the lead on growing the program. George W. Bush's administration picked it up first, bringing it into the mainstream. The man Bush appointed to head up his efforts to combat homelessness Philip Mangano put Tsemberis’s housing first theory into nationwide practice and the result was that the "chronically homeless" fell 30 per cent between 2005 and 2007.
The Great Recession hit in 2008, but chronic homelessness fell an additional 21 per cent because Obama picked up the Housing First baton, first with the $1.5 billion stimulus-based Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program and then as the centerpiece of his "Opening Doors" plan. A 2015 update reconfirmed that Housing First "is the solution" and declared chronic homelessness would be eliminated in the U.S. by 2017 and that youth and family homelessness was on track to be ended by 2020.
Homelessness in Utah has fallen 91 per cent since launching its Housing First program in 2005. State housing director Gordon Walker told the Desert News in April that "the remaining balance is 178 people. We know them by name, who they are and what their needs are." To further assist the no-longer-homeless, Utah recently started a pilot program to expunge minor crimes from their records to facilitate finding employment.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)because the basic concept is supported on both the left and right of the economic experts and it has to do with stimulating demand. On the right, Friedman called it "helicopter money" and on the left Jeremy Corbyn has a version called "People's QE". They aren't exactly the same (Corbyn's idea is more along the lines of classic Keynesianism where things are built), but they do involve getting money into the hands of workers and the poor and letting them spend it.
I'm OK with it as long as it's a lifetime basic income and is enough for a basic livelihood and is tied to COL adjustments preferably set by the workers and recipients themselves. As to where the money would come from, don't bail out banks, just use the money that would be earmarked for that for a UBMI.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)When automation get's to the point where no one is needed on the assembly line, or serving food, etc....
most of the population here won't be working. It's inevitable.
This must be started ASAP so it can mature for the rest of the population when the time comes.
Where's the money going to come from? We could start by making all American pay their fare share of taxes.
Cause we've been covering their shit for a long time now.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Not with half of a Congress that's still heavily into Glenn Beck's glib write-off economic cure of "JUST GET A JOB! IT MAY NOT BE THE JOB YOU WANT, BUT JUST GET ONE!!". UBI is a progressive idea. How many economic progressives are among the 535? That'd be 11-15%, currently. More than a good percentage of America is still shackled by the Plantation mentality and the Protestant Work Ethic. They're self haters. Look at this thread. "I'm just ain't gonna do shit and get fuuuuuuuuucked up whut a stupid idea haw haw".
I honestly don't know where the money would come from to fund this year after year. I just don't believe the lobbyists and the handlers would ever stand for it, much less support it. America still believes beatings will improve morale.
Health and success being tethered on how gainfully one is employed has always been a counterproductive idea in the 21st century. The means are there; the political will is not.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)money is simple. 1)They have to be able to GET a job if they are expected to work. As some here know I do not like the Calvinist religion that espouses this idea but Calvin himself plainly stated in "The Protestant Work Ethic" that if the government was going to require a person to work then the government had to provide the jobs where none existed. Bill Clinton's welfare reform forgot that little issue - especially in the inner cities.
2)They have to be capable of work. Disabled people often cannot work. Our local newspaper had a OP about those not getting work - I filled our a resume with my daughter's qualifications and sent it in to them. They did not publish it but they did get the message. For years she has been expected (against my will) to work at a sheltered workshop with a one-to-one aide who moves her hand and pushes it down so that the machine works. She is no more able to hold a job than an infant but yet she has been expected to "work".
3)They are too old to work. At least Social Security was meant to address this issue. But times have changed and we now have a great deal of over 50 people who are no longer considered worthy of hire. We need to expand Social Security.
4)They are children.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)if the government was going to require a person to work then the government had to provide the jobs where none existed
many thanks
jwirr
(39,215 posts)where it originated.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)we have move a long ways for good ideas
jwirr
(39,215 posts)we did not institute those ideas - instead we started a new trend - trickle down (up).
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)growth - forever????
will not work
jwirr
(39,215 posts)world to figure that out. It means giving things up.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)it will be a long hard fight - until many more are hungry
jwirr
(39,215 posts)He works at a resource office trying to bring environmentally sound alternatives in. He was talking about fracking and stopping it. I was talking about a design for a tiny house and appliances that were alternatives to what we have today.
We have not even started to think about recreating the means we are using to survive today. Heating sources? Cooking sources? Waste management? Basics?
At least my tiny house will not need as much heat but that is about as far as I have gotten.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)???
i will be there tomorrow
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Same old same old.
I'm not giving my hard earned money to someone who doesn't want to work!
you know, punish the people who are trying to better themselves because some others don't want to.
USA! USA! USA! USA!
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)America: Where the well-to-do are insanely jealous of the wonderful lives the haven't-got-bupkis set allegedly has.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I can't blame them to much.
We're all mostly squeaking by and i can't blame anyone who can't afford to this.
If the middle class was strong and large, we'de have a better chance of doing this, but we're in our situation by design.
So yea, let's hire a pro corporate President because those in the status quo just can't let go.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If someone has no skills, give them an unskilled job. Pay them a living wage. Collect a few taxes. They get to have some dignity, live a regular life, be like the rest of us. That's far better than just giving them money.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... not "Where is the money coming from," but "Where are the jobs coming from?" We'll ignore, for the nonce, the point that jobs have to be paid for with, ah, money.
As for dignity of labor, I believe I won't dignify that with a reply.
-- Mal
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Work is not dignified in the United States because of the way we treat workers, as commodities on the labor market. Simply paying people to be alive is cheaper than creating jobs for them, but replacing jobs with income payments will have negative social consequences if we make it common practice.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Which is not, after all, worth any more than anyone else's. Small-scale UPI experiments have had smashing successes, other programs that "give free stuff" have not had dire social consequences, so one may be forgiven for wondering on what data you base your opinion. And let us stipulate it is so, what is the solution, then? Where will the jobs come from? For years, it has been claimed that new industries will come into existence to create new jobs for those who become redundant, yet unless Starbucks is your idea of a "new industry," this turns out not to be the case. Productivity-per-worker continues to climb, and there is no reason to think it will stop any time soon. Who do you know who thinks a brake should be put on productivity? Anyone who proposed that would be laughed at as a Luddite. So tell me, what do we do with all the people we don't need? It's not a facetious question.
-- Mal
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)In the Great Depression, we created jobs for people who didn't have work, and we used the power of the government to do it. The benefits were enormous, and continue to this day, despite the best efforts of Republicans to repudiate the New Deal and tear down its accomplishments.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Yes, a good CCC program would be enormously helpful, but it only addresses one part of the problem. (Some people have toyed with the idea of a mandatory CCC-type program, a sort of compulsory VISTA, to promote young people of different social classes rubbing elbows together. That does, of course, smack a bit too much of the Organization Todt, but it is not wholly without merit) But the problem remains of employing the rising numbers of those who are not employable: senior citizens, for example, may not be physically able to do labor on infrastructure projects. The other point is that the CCC programs, and the post-war plenty, occurred at a time when there was actually a labor shortage, one moreover falsely enhanced by arbitrarily restricting access of certain groups (women and blacks, e.g.) to the labor pool. But that situation no longer obtains. Having said that, it would be a useful step in the right direction, if not a solution in itself. (IMO, of course)
-- Mal
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But we may not have to go that far, we have an infrastructure that is crumbling. But we need the money from the Rich Fat Cats. Make them start paying their fair share. Let them finance the defense budget if they want it. Otherwise cut the defense budget in half and put that money into hiring for infrastructure repair.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)I want them to pay a horking great unfair share. "Fair share" is a meaningless term when we're talking about somebody who makes more in one year than most people will make in their lifetimes.
As for the CCC, that's mentioned just above. But it doesn't address the question of all the excess people who are not capable of doing physical labor. Ever mix concrete? That's hard work.
-- Mal
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)FDR got 25% of his campaign funding from Wall Street
He also presided over Jim Crow. The New Deal did not extend to them and other people of color.
Your candidate have not supported cutting the defense budget. He has voted for nearly every defense appropriation bill and continues to support the F-35 and its $1 trillion in corporate welfare to Lockheed-Martin.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)IndyV0te
(18 posts)I am afraid that life has taught me that all of us are lazy. I mean there are very few that would choose hard work over being given free "universal guaranteed income" in order to survive.
Instead the idea of everyone (who is physically and mentally able of course) being REQUIRED to work and provide something useful to society is a far better solution.
That said concentrating the world's resources in the hands of a few while the rest fight over the scraps is likewise unacceptable.
The real problem is, "Who decides?"
The socialists/communists say "the government" decides. Who is the government? The very same few who fight to consolidate wealth, power and control!
The conservatives/capitalists say "the people" decide. Who are the people? They are you and me...until a few build the company/become a lifetime politician that consolidates our wealth, power and control.
Which is best? I think the US Founding Fathers tried to design a system that was the best of both. Government where needed, popular (local) control everywhere else. Unfortunately centralized power (both governmental and capitalistic) has won out and that brings us to where we are today.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...that it is not the panacea people think it is because it suffers from the same problem other forms of public assistance have, official inflation numbers are manipulated downward as a way of cutting benefits through the back door.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)care of two-year-olds in day care when I was a student.
Children want to learn and become independent. They want to be able to dress themselves, put on their own shoes and be "brown up."
When I visit my granddaughter, she runs to my suitcase and wants to try on all my teeshirts, anything she can wear. She is all of two.
She wants to read. She wants to play the piano. She is a very, very busy young lady. She has a cooking set with pots and pans and keeps quite busy with them. And when she isn't "cooking," she is building with her blocks.
My grandson at five is even more intent on doing and learning and being as self-sufficient as he can.
Human beings like to be able to take care of themselves and help others. That's what human nature is about. We are social beings.
It is a myth that humans are naturally lazy. I just don't believe it. If we stop being active, we die. That's what I think.
So, making sure, in a world of automation and at the moment, not enough work for everyone, working should not be a requirement for eating and having a safe place to sleep.
That's what I think.
Let's make this a good world.
But at the same time, we need to encourage all people to limit the size of their family to a number that does not increase our population beyond the earth's current ability to feed all of us.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Manufacturing jobs will continue to disappear, any job that can be replaced by a computer or robotics will be, service/retail jobs don't pay squat.
No economy is sustainable based on a very few reaping the rewards and the rest fighting for the scraps.
It will take a while for it to happen but it will happen one way to the other.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The negative responses to this, posts on FB about food stamps, etc I am left shaking my head.
All of these conversations have the middle class speaking against the working class, the working class speaking against those in poverty. Did it not occur to anyone that this is what the wealthy want? They want us to keep scowling at those below us on the economic ladder and focus on how bad/useless/lazy those people are, so that we never look up and realize that, as we fight for scraps, they are ripping all of us off.
The poor. The people who just want a place to live and some food. Maybe even a car or a vacation someday, these are not your enemies. The person on food stamps buying something you think is too expensive is not your enemy. The person trying to get SSDI or some help from the state, these are not your enemies.
The people at the top, who hoard money out of some bizarre need to gather more and more that they will never spend, THOSE are your enemies. They don't care about, they don't like you. They just use you in their own addiction to watching their bank accounts rise for no other reason then to use those dollar signs to gain power, to feel good about themselves.
Greed is the enemy. Poor people are not the enemy.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)is doing this and some others are looking into it.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)It would have so many benefits and would be easy to pay for if we had a progressive income tax with no big loopholes, a VAT tax, and cut the a defense budget big time. Oh and legalize and tax pot.
It would cut our health care costs just from lack of stress.
robertgodardfromnj
(67 posts)Every person deserves a chance at a decent life.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)I wrote a long essay about automation last month that concludes with talking about a UBI as an essential solution to the problems that are coming. You should check it out:
Bernie Sanders, Automation, and the Fate of the US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511494371#post31
eridani
(51,907 posts)What would you do if somebody gave you a few hundred pounds each month to spend on whatever you wanted? Would you quit your job? Retrain and look for a better one? Spend more time with your kids? Get those vital repairs done on your house? Eat better food?
I’m not trying to taunt you. Asking anyone who has to work for a living to contemplate a society in which they have proper economic choices feels like asking a friend on a doctor-enforced diet to describe their favourite dessert. But it’s the question being raised by a growing chorus of thinkers and campaigners, from Silicon Valley businessmen to conservative philosophers, who believe that the answer to a snarled web of economic problems – wage inequality, automation and the gender pay gap, among others – is to institute an “unconditional basic income”.
Basic income – the proposal to give a flat, non-means-tested payment to every citizen – is an old idea. It has been around for centuries, and for centuries its proponents have largely been dismissed as utopian, or insane, or both. This year, however, that insanity is gradually becoming a political reality. Finland is considering giving its citizens an unconditional stipend of €800 a month and the Dutch city of Utrecht is carrying out a similar experiment. Switzerland will hold a referendum on basic income in June.
Campaigns to get the idea taken seriously are sprouting like mushrooms around the world. In the US, the tech start-up funder Y Combinator is earmarking money to test the theory. In Germany, a crowdfunding initiative called Mein Grundeinkommen (“my basic income”) to give a basic wage to as many people as possible has attracted over a quarter of a million contributors.
“Basic income is about power, about letting it go,” Michael Bohmeyer, a former entrepreneur who runs Mein Grundeinkommen, told me. “It’s about trusting people. It gives them the freedom to say no and to ask the question: how do I really want to live? Basic income is not a left-wing idea, or a right-wing one. It’s a humanistic idea. It strengthens human beings against the system and it gives them the freedom to rethink it.”
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)All thanks to Wall St shareholders who prefer to profit from the death of our natural world than to stand up for it. For once.
The least those who have ruined it for everyone and everything forever can do is soften the landing on the way down.
The chances of them growing a conscience and doing it?
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)First, you'd get better political support for it if it's tied to age. Second, you provide incentives for older people to leave the work force earlier which would then open up more jobs for the young.
