|
OwlFancier posted:Not necessarily, because once the stored wealth inequality is addressed, mincome can be repurposed to maintain wealth equality. Like I said, there are several problems with this. Among them: you can't spend yachts or mansions or even really divide them up so the process of confiscating wealth from the rich devalues it. Spending savings en masse is inflationary. The bottom line is that spending down saved wealth doesn't work as well as you might imagine. Ultimately the policy is bounded by income.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
In the long term yes, but I don't see why in the short term, the goal should be to force the extremely wealthy to sell off their assets, because those assets are not valuable anyway in terms of utility to society. Do it slowly if you have to but it should be done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Like I said, there are several problems with this. Among them: you can't spend yachts or mansions or even really divide them up so the process of confiscating wealth from the rich devalues it. Spending savings en masse is inflationary. The bottom line is that spending down saved wealth doesn't work as well as you might imagine. Yes you can. It's called property tax. It's a thing that already exists, although we barely use it, and is by definition not unduly burdensome, since the taxpayer can always pay it by selling the property. The mega-rich don't keep their cash sitting around in piggy banks. It's stored in liquidizable things like stocks and real estate. We currently have lots of economic policies that enable wealth hoarding and that's something that would change in a society that prioritized equality enough to enact mincome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What are you talking about? If supply increasing to meet demand is 'growth', then what it is most definitely not is 'wage growth'. That and wages are not just a pure supply/demand negotiation, they also represent a power relationship between employer and employee, hence why wages fall when union participation is down. VitalSigns posted:Contracting supply of labor (because children can stay in school and one spouse can stay home with the kids and people can retire on time and the poor don't need to work three jobs to make ends meet), not contracting supply of goods. If the supply of labor contracts then the supply of goods is likely to contract as well. Or suppliers will find substitutes which utilize less mincome labor (migrant workers, imports). This disemployment of mincome labor will have the effect of making the entitlement that much more expensive budget-wise as you will have fewer people working and paying taxes. Tax rates on the still-working class will have to be raised or money borrowed to continue funding the entitlement. Alternatively, prices will have to be raised to achieve market equilibrium between increasing demand and contracting supply. All of this is bad economics. Also I see no one has bothered to address a point I made earlier: A mincome would make America a very expensive place to live and do business for anyone not receiving mincome. This extends to exports. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Also I see no one has bothered to address a point I made earlier: A mincome would make America a very expensive place to live and do business for anyone not receiving mincome. This extends to exports. How about you bother to address the points anyone's made to you first, whiny-rear end? I'm still waiting to see you make a convincing case that you don't consume art, for one. And quit saying "entitlement" like a right wing radio host. I'm sick of my dog barking every time I open this thread. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:If the supply of labor contracts then the supply of goods is likely to contract as well. Or suppliers will find substitutes which utilize less mincome labor (migrant workers, imports). This disemployment of mincome labor will have the effect of making the entitlement that much more expensive budget-wise as you will have fewer people working and paying taxes. Tax rates on the still-working class will have to be raised or money borrowed to continue funding the entitlement. Alternatively, prices will have to be raised to achieve market equilibrium between increasing demand and contracting supply. Alternatively businesses will have to make better offers to attract workers, because workers now have a more equitable negotiating position when selling their labour. If there is a supply shortage of labour that will improve the employee/employer relationship. This is good. Again this cannot be too expensive unless the nation is incapable of producing enough to supply all its people, which manifestly cannot be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively businesses will have to make better offers to attract workers, because workers now have a more equitable negotiating position when selling their labour. If there is a supply shortage of labour that will improve the employee/employer relationship. This is good. Again this cannot be too expensive unless the nation is incapable of producing enough to supply all its people, which manifestly cannot be the case. What evidence is there that working conditions would improve along with a rise in income? There are people in America right now making decent money even as they work long hours in dangerous conditions. Mincome giving people the option to take their ball and go home would have its limits. If you're making $40,000 a year ($20k in mincome and $20k from your employer) and you decide to quit because conditions suck and the hours are exploitative you're looking at a pretty devastating loss of income especially since most people in this thread acknowledge that prices would go up under a mincome. A mincome is just about the most inefficient way imaginable of pushing worker protections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:What evidence is there that working conditions would improve along with a rise in income? There are people in America right now making decent money even as they work long hours in dangerous conditions. Mincome giving people the option to take their ball and go home has its limits. If you're making $40,000 a year ($20k in mincome and $20k from your employer) and you decide to quit because conditions suck and the hours are exploitative you're looking at a pretty devastating loss of income especially since most people in this thread acknowledge that prices would go up under a mincome. But that is a choice, as in, you could choose to do that, realistically. It might be an unpleasant choice but it's yours to make. Whereas, say, you are not in the same position if you're entirely dependent on your employer to continue to live. Being able to quit gives you far more material bargaining power than anything else. And it's not mutually exclusive with other protection for workers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:How are you going to allocate and distribute the goods? Would there be huge warehouses everywhere with free stuff that the government restocks? Food stamp on steroids? Man that's a tough one. We'd probably need some kind of nationwide distribution infrastructure like we already have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the long term yes, but I don't see why in the short term, the goal should be to force the extremely wealthy to sell off their assets, because those assets are not valuable anyway in terms of utility to society. You might have it as a goal but I'm saying it's not significant in terms of its ability to pay for min income. For example I put all us deposits at like 70% of GDP. We're talking a couple years of min income or so. And again, if you aim to make yachts and mansions unaffordable then you simultaneously make them worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You might have it as a goal but I'm saying it's not significant in terms of its ability to pay for min income. What part of "rich people don't store their money in savings accounts" are you having so much trouble understanding?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You might have it as a goal but I'm saying it's not significant in terms of its ability to pay for min income. Yachts and mansions are unaffordable and are worthless. At least as private property. Repurposed to be communal or at least affordably rentable property they would have greater utility and economic viability in a high-tax world. And as I said, you can do it slowly. Set the mincome based on national income plus a little extra to erode stored wealth at the high end of the spectrum. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What part of "rich people don't store their money in savings accounts" are you having so much trouble understanding? Apparently you don't get that makes things harder. OwlFancier posted:Yachts and mansions are unaffordable and are worthless. At least as private property. Repurposed to be communal or at least affordably rentable property they would have greater utility and economic viability in a high-tax world. Owl and I agree though (in multiple threads I've had to argue for why yachts don't benefit the wider economy to people who are confused about the role of demand).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:If the supply of labor contracts then the supply of goods is likely to contract as well. Or suppliers will find substitutes which utilize less mincome labor (migrant workers, imports). This disemployment of mincome labor will have the effect of making the entitlement that much more expensive budget-wise as you will have fewer people working and paying taxes. Tax rates on the still-working class will have to be raised or money borrowed to continue funding the entitlement. Alternatively, prices will have to be raised to achieve market equilibrium between increasing demand and contracting supply. But even a transition from $1000/week -> $500/week + $500 minincome alone is an improvement, you know if you throw in the towel you'll still get the mincome, but you want your gym membership so you keep doing the job. Broad employment won't change that much, and the unemployed need food anyway so talking about how 'inefficient' that is is pure evil. The businesses' tax burden goes up but it's offset by the fact that they'll be paying less in wages, so it might end up bing a wash, or a marginal increase or decreasing depend on how much of your labor is minimum wage now and how many people you employ. America wouldn't become terribly expensive to operate in, and even if it did, companies still make poo poo in first world countries because of better infrastructure and resources, so they'll put up with the higher tax burden. Over the long term, the health benefits and ability for people to act from a position of safety (and take risks, because you know entrepreneurship isn't gambling with homelessness) will make society better. Reading the Microeconomics page on wikipedia doesn't make you an economics expert, and continuing to repeat the same dumb points doesn't help either. Also you haven't responded to my disproof of your little 'increased prices' jam. Seems you'll hypocritically whinge like a baby if you think you're not being addressed, but don't see a problem just ignoring other people's responses. I'll be honest, I had a bit of sympathy for you, but it's falling away quickly. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Apparently you don't get that makes things harder. It's time for you to stop talking about things you don't know about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yachts and mansions are unaffordable and are worthless. At least as private property. Repurposed to be communal or at least affordably rentable property they would have greater utility and economic viability in a high-tax world. Why does a yacht or mansion matter at all? They don't produce income, and without a high income are impossible to keep in a reasonable state of repair. Also at least for yachts, jets, and other highly valuable mobile high-dollar goods, every single one of those will be moved overseas to their registered Bahamas location as soon as a confiscatory taxes look like a 50-50 proposition (so at least a couple weeks in advance).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why does a yacht or mansion matter at all? They don't produce income, and without a high income are impossible to keep in a reasonable state of repair. Also at least for yachts, jets, and other highly valuable mobile high-dollar goods, every single one of those will be moved overseas to their registered Bahamas location as soon as a confiscatory taxes look like a 50-50 proposition (so at least a couple weeks in advance). You'll probably try to split hairs about defining "income," but real estate absolutely generates money, which is why we have foreign investors dumping millions into investment properties in this country. Seriously, nobody has any business trying to have this conversation without a handle on some basic facts about how our economy works and what the very very rich do with it. And asdf32 is a moron so stop talking about yachts like they're our national budget's sole resource just because that's what he decided to harp on. I keep saying this and you all keep ignoring it, but national-level money stuff is complicated. Blind guesses and assumptions are not going to equip you to say anything meaningful about an economic policy on this scale. Also, to reiterate: PROPERTY TAXES ALREADY EXIST. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:What evidence is there that working conditions would improve along with a rise in income? There are people in America right now making decent money even as they work long hours in dangerous conditions. Mincome giving people the option to take their ball and go home would have its limits. If you're making $40,000 a year ($20k in mincome and $20k from your employer) and you decide to quit because conditions suck and the hours are exploitative you're looking at a pretty devastating loss of income especially since most people in this thread acknowledge that prices would go up under a mincome. on the other hand, when i quit delivering pizza (which was already a job of last resort after getting fired from my previous gig) because i was in the middle of a complete mental breakdown (which in hindsight was related to getting fired from the previous gig), i was out of work for a month. i had exactly no money coming in during that month. i would rather have some money coming in than no money. i hope this helps you udnerstand why mincome would not be bad in this situation, and you should feel free to ask me about working bottom fo the barrel work while mentally ill if you have any questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But that is a choice, as in, you could choose to do that, realistically. It might be an unpleasant choice but it's yours to make. You're right that this could be helpful to some degree, I just think its proponents are over-stating the efficacy of mincome for bargaining. Employers as monoposony would still be a problem and the individual worker withholding his/her labor by peacing out of the workforce because their job sucks is still acting as an individual rather than as one part of a collective whole. I agree that a basic income would put upward pressure on wages but as I have pointed out the benefits of this are somewhat dubious. There seems to be the perception in this thread that the cost of any wage increase would come entirely out of employer's profits. rudatron posted:What's bad economics is not knowing what you're talking about. The supply will not 'contract', what will change is the bargaining position of the employee. Are we reading the same thread? Because it's clear that one of the main virtues of a basic income is that it allows able bodied workers to opt out of the labor pool. rudatron posted:Labor that needs to be done will still need to be done, and it's not as if wages + mincome will drastically end up being different from pure wages now, so employment will actually end up being the same. Who decides what labor "needs" to be done? What is the formula for calculating what is essential labor? And I'll note that you are tacitly admitting that some labor wouldn't get done (the "unnecessary" kind). Oh, but there wouldn't be a fall in the supply of affordable labor! You'd have to be economically illiterate to believe that! rudatron posted:Total mincome + wages for lower class people will go up until the labor is done. Or until it is no longer profitable to employ them... rudatron posted:Like you talk supply and demand, but I don't think you actually understand that the supply demand curve are functions, and change in availability at a price are determined by changes in that function. If jobs are lost, it'll be jobs that are with elastic demand curves first, jobs with inelastic curves won't change their demand if prices increase (and indeed, the elasticity of jobs will change as people will refuse to be essentially abused for a pittance) - but all that labor still has to be done, and it's better to have a job than no, so after all the potential wage changes, there's no guarantee that total employment will decrease (or increase). Yeah, so you are fully admitting that certain jobs would be priced out of the market and you hand-wave this problem with the assumption that if the jobs were worth doing people would pay for them with their apparently limitless supply of money. This is real, true labor economics and definitely not a utopian pipe dream. rudatron posted:Reading the Microeconomics page on wikipedia doesn't make you an economics expert, and continuing to repeat the same dumb points doesn't help either.  I'll have you know I minored in economics.  rudatron posted:Also you haven't responded to my disproof of your little 'increased prices' jam. I must have missed that part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:on the other hand, when i quit delivering pizza (which was already a job of last resort after getting fired from my previous gig) because i was in the middle of a complete mental breakdown (which in hindsight was related to getting fired from the previous gig), i was out of work for a month. i had exactly no money coming in during that month. i would rather have some money coming in than no money. i hope this helps you udnerstand why mincome would not be bad in this situation, and you should feel free to ask me about working bottom fo the barrel work while mentally ill if you have any questions. There are so many ways to address this problem that don't involve giving physically and mentally fit adults money for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:There are so many ways to address this problem that don't involve giving physically and mentally fit adults money for nothing. there are many physically and mentally fit adults who flat out do not make enough money to survive without working an absurd number of hours a week. this should not happen. gently caress off with your MONEY FOR NOTHIN ENTITLEMENT bullshit. also you have yet to offer up a way to do anything
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:You're right that this could be helpful to some degree, I just think its proponents are over-stating the efficacy of mincome for bargaining. Employers as monoposony would still be a problem and the individual worker withholding his/her labor by peacing out of the workforce because their job sucks is still acting as an individual rather than as one part of a collective whole. I agree that a basic income would put upward pressure on wages but as I have pointed out the benefits of this are somewhat dubious. There seems to be the perception in this thread that the cost of any wage increase would come entirely out of employer's profits. They may not come entirely out of profits but you can make it so that there is little other choice. As others have pointed out, if the work needs doing the employers will have to figure out a way to get it done, and that may mean hiring on better terms for the workers. Or it may mean automation. Whether people organise consciously becomes less relevant when everyone can individually quit because they individually come to the conclusion that the terms of employment are bullshit. Either way still creates a labour problem for organizations which need to hire people, so either they have to hire on better terms or they have to figure out another way to do things. Price raises are a possibility but prices are dictated by the market, so you can only raise prices until people stop paying for them. In the case of goods with already low labour costs such as food, it becomes harder to raise the price because you will be very vulnerable to local suppliers undercutting you, which is another good thing. Typical Pubbie posted:There are so many ways to address this problem that don't involve giving physically and mentally fit adults money for nothing. Again, though, why is this a problem? You don't have to earn the right to live, it comes in-built when you're born. If you really object to some people working and others not, you can easily arrange things so that everybody works a little bit. The entire point is that our productive capacity outstrips our needs, but a very large portion of the excess does not return to the populace in the form of less work or better standards of living. Mincome is designed to address that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
"uh i think you'll find that LOSING YOUR JOB while RECEIVING GUARANTEED MONEY would be bad" "i lost my job and was poor as gently caress for a month, mincome would actually be good" "yeha but whatever ENTITLEMENT"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:there are many physically and mentally fit adults who flat out do not make enough money to survive without working an absurd number of hours a week. this should not happen. gently caress off with your MONEY FOR NOTHIN ENTITLEMENT bullshit. You have not been reading my posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:You have not been reading my posts. dogg you literally quoted me pointing out how stupid "i think you'll find that only having mincome in between jobs would be bad, actually" is, offered up some "there's other ways" bullshit, and then that was it don't tell me you've been offering up other solutions after not offering a solution
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
"uhm actually i think you'll find that living on the razor's edge all the time and being one bad day away from poverty is preferable to making sure everyone has a baseline amount of money coming in"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
In a humane and economically sane society if you became ill you would go to a doctor (for free) who would write you a letter which you would take to the unemployment office to collect disability while you are given treatment (for free). Such programs have already been implemented in several countries around the world. If you go back and read my posts you will find this to be consistent with my previous suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Which is great, now let's combine that with giving you money anyway so that you can also quit your job on the basis that your job is poo poo. Because there isn't really any other good way to put people on a competitive footing with their employer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:In a humane and economically sane society if you became ill you would go to a doctor (for free) who would write you a letter which you would take to the unemployment office to collect disability while you are given treatment (for free). Such programs have already been implemented in several countries around the world. If you go back and read my posts you will find this to be consistent with my previous suggestions. cool, now let's make it so if, for example, the only jobs i'm really capable of doing are garbage rear end bullshit that doesn't pay a lot, i'm not also barely scraping by, particularly if i lose my job for some reason coincidentally, this scenario is also known as reality
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:cool, now let's make it so if, for example, the only jobs i'm really capable of doing are garbage rear end bullshit that doesn't pay a lot, i'm not also barely scraping by, particularly if i lose my job for some reason If your job is poo poo that sucks but someone has to do the poo poo jobs. Bearing this in mind the humane and economically sane government decides to dramatically expand and enhance the EITC. You are now being paid a living income to do your poo poo job. Strong labor laws ensure that even though your job sucks at least you are guaranteed a few weeks paid vacation from it per year as well as a sane work week. And since college and vocational schools are 100% tuition free you can use your off time to learn new skills with which to improve your job prospects. If you go back and read my posts you will find this to be consistent with my previous suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:If your job is poo poo that sucks but someone has to do the poo poo jobs. i never said they didn't we should probably make sure those people aren't on the poverty line while they do it, though, you goddamn idiot Typical Pubbie posted:Strong labor laws ensure that even though your job sucks at least you are guaranteed a few weeks paid vacation from it per year uhhhhhhh no? no. nope. i have literally never had paid vacation. edit oh we're still posting in your fantasy land despite me posting about an actual irl situation that i live in
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:And since college and vocational schools are 100% tuition free you can use your off time to learn new skills with which to improve your job prospects. oh, you mean your few paid weeks a year? or in addition to working forty hours a week for not enough money to survive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
This is a thread about hypothetical solutions to the problem of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:This is a thread about hypothetical solutions to the problem of poverty. and that particular hypothetical solution is a hot bag of garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
It is at least suboptimal, it would be far preferable for everyone to simply be given a share of the national production regardless of what they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is at least suboptimal, it would be far preferable for everyone to simply be given a share of the national production regardless of what they do. How is that optimal? An adult who is capable of supporting themselves gets more value out of a free $20k check than a disabled person who can't work and has to spend a shitload of time and money on essentials as a result. Giving people who can support themselves money when they don't need it is not optimal (assuming normal economic conditions). It is a misallocation of resources. If you must you should be giving the disabled person $40k and the able bodied person your gratitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:There are so many ways to address this problem that don't involve giving physically and mentally fit adults money for nothing. You do realize that our current economic system gives physically and mentally fit adults money for nothing? Billions and billions of dollars, in fact. It's called inheritance, and gifts. You are very focused on preventing a single cent going to a poor person who 'hasn't earned it'', but have completely ignored the massive wealth that goes to rich people who haven't earned it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:How is that optimal? An adult who is capable of supporting themselves gets more value out of a free $20k check than a disabled person who can't work and has to spend a shitload of time and money on essentials as a result. Giving people who can support themselves money when they don't need it is not optimal (assuming normal economic conditions). It is a misallocation of resources. If you must you should be giving the disabled person $40k and the able bodied person your gratitude. This assumes that literally all other programs will stop existing, and that if you can work you don't still need aid
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:How is that optimal? An adult who is capable of supporting themselves gets more value out of a free $20k check than a disabled person who can't work and has to spend a shitload of time and money on essentials as a result. Giving people who can support themselves money when they don't need it is not optimal (assuming normal economic conditions). It is a misallocation of resources. If you must you should be giving the disabled person $40k and the able bodied person your gratitude. That isn't mutually exclusive with mincome. I don't expect the entire state to be dismantled in lieu of giving people money. Socialized healthcare is a given, but that doesn't mean everyone gets the same surgery assigned to them at regular intervals, they get the care they need. If you have a condition which necessitates greater support you get it, if your town needs more infrastructure investment it gets it, the apparatus of the state continues to function, but also there should be an effort to divide the products of the nation's labour equally among its citizens, on the basis that they all should be entitled to the same, good, quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Inheritance above a certain level should be taxed at 100%. A poor person who can work should attempt to find work just like everyone else, and be guaranteed a living income and certain protections and benefits for their trouble. While they are searching for work they may apply for unemployment insurance and other programs just like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 07:01
|
|