|
If everyone has lost their jobs to machines who will buy the crap machines produce? Makes you think.
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:What you're really talking about here is labor participation, and in that sense we've already got around 40% of the working age population who are unemployed. The actual unemployment rate only looks at people who are actually looking for work. Labor force participation rose pretty steadily as women started working, and it's falling again since there aren't actually enough jobs to support full labor participation. And more people retiring.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:As was already said, we need one now. But even that is only part of a solution, as it simply creates a basic income underclass, and an ultra rich overclass. It does little to fix social mobility. Ensuring that basic needs are met for everyone no matter what is actually excellent for social mobility. http://www.bignam.org/Publications/BIG_Assessment_report_08a.pdf quote:As noted above, we found several examples of new economic activities linked to the BIG. Most notable were several new small business activities that emerged, including retailing, brick-making and the manufacture of clothing. Thus the BIG was not spent only on immediate consumption needs but also provided a basis for income-generating activity. This is supported by the following remarks from residents of Otjivero:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:It's not elastic in the current environment, it's a false 'requirement'. It's not the perception of future return (meaning that they aren't looking at the amount they will make), it's instilled in kids these days that a college degree is a requirement for any kind of decent job beyond a minimum wage. They get told "If you don't want to work at McDonald's your whole life go to college." It's not that the jobs themselves have changed in difficulty therefore requiring a degree, it's that the competition for jobs has increased. There's a reason that diploma mills exist and it isn't to educate. The competition for the lower end jobs that 'require' degrees would end. If there were a guaranteed income, having to get a diploma from a university to get a job as a secretary would disappear. There would be no reason to get 'a degree' just to make a basic living. It's not the higher tier jobs that actually need a degree that would be affected. But the phenomenon you're talking about doesn't really exist in the first place. A quick glance at AA jobs on my local Craigslist found exactly one with "degree preferred," and none that were required. Even in more technical fields like software development a degree isn't really required if you have enough experience. And the reason jobs aren't requiring it is because there isn't the supply that would be needed: 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
on the left posted:The whole point of a mincome is to drastically cut the workforce, so it makes sense to point out the effects of doing that. If your argument is that a mincome will change very little, then what's the point of enacting one? It's not though, it's to provide everyone with a basic level of sustenance. One of the big changes caused by the basic income study I linked earlier was that self-employment income went up as people didn't have to worry about starving if starting a business didn't work out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Since they don't get the basic income unless they're residents, it's no different from giving it to a "native."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I really hope a country tries it. A complete, closed loop, long-term attempt will be a glorious trainwreck. It's actually been tried and worked quite well. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Anyway no, price increases can't cancel out any gains because of basic economics. The reason is that if prices increase to the point where the burden on poor people is the same, the burden on relatively richer people will be higher because the basic income is a lower proportion of their income. That means lower demand, and inevitably lower prices. It's the same reason why minimum wage increases are effective.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
What countries can you move to if you aren't able to afford good healthcare here?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Property doesn't mean what you think it does What is the property tax rate that the ultra-rich would have to pay on their investments?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:When? I don't think you grasp just how large the wealth held by the 1% is. But most of the 100-whatever trillion held by the wealthy is businesses. Liquidating that is going to cause lots of problems very quickly. Redistributing it to the employees would work better but that's a completely different policy 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If you have it done directly through treasury, how? I guess causing massive inflation is one way of not increasing the deficit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, when the current issue is consumption held down by debt service obligations, yes, increased rates of inflation do induce additional demand and promote economic growth. A single year of it would exceed the current M1 and would match all bond purchases done during all the rounds of QE. So unless there's real data it seems very high.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:To the majority of people in America, any kind of aid to the poor is morally atrocious. [citation needed]
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
A 50% marginal tax on poor people is pretty awful actually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In this case it is a reduction in benefits which is a pretty different, you could always scale it but ultimately it a budgetary sense you need to most likely means test at some point. It's the same result: a $1 income increase results in a $0.50 loss to the government. quote:If you have limited resources, a hypothetical example does it make sense to have a 8k GMI for those making 0 but those making 20k a year get 28k in total or have a 13k GMI but those making 20k only get 23k in total? Depends. Without hard data it's impossible to answer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Again this assumes that the cost of most if not all goods will not rise to compensate for the increased income, in which case demand will go back to its original level. That's because we know how economics works.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 20:13
|
|