- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I have thought for some time that it might be wise to eliminate all our current entitlements (social security, welfare, etc.) and replace them with a simple guaranteed income floor across the board. Here's an interesting experiment aimed at finding out what happens when you do that.
Lifestyle
We're about to find out what happens when you give poor people basic income for life
Over the past decade, interest has grown in an ostensibly unorthodox approach for helping people who don’t have much money: just give them more of it, no strings attached. In the old days of policymaking by aphorism-give a man a fish, feed him for a day!-simply handing money to the poor was considered an obviously bad idea. How naïve-you can’t just give people money. They’ll stop trying! They’ll just get drunk! The underlying assumption was that the poor weren’t good at making decisions for themselves: Experts had to make the decisions for them. As 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. . . . .
I am pretty sure that that is a good solution. Every serious analysis i have seen over time makes guaranteed minimum income seem more sensible than our present systems in the OECD.
The US ran experiments to this topic in the 1970s, if I recall. The results were mostly encouraging. I have been arguing for 20 years with my political friends that it should be undertaken or at least wider experiments undertaken. But there is massive resistance to this innovation from public bureaucracy employees and their unions, as the greatest number of their jobs would go.
That was Canada, we tested in a small town in Manitoba. The new federal Liberals and the Ontario Liberals I think are trying to do more experiments.
I'm all for this. If you give me a mere $80k/yr (adjusted annually for inflation) I promise that I will never be poor again.
I have thought for some time that it might be wise to eliminate all our current entitlements (social security, welfare, etc.) and replace them with a simple guaranteed income floor across the board. Here's an interesting experiment ...
It's still robbing the treasury to provide for peoples individual needs.
I'm all for this. If you give me a mere $80k/yr (adjusted annually for inflation) I promise that I will never be poor again.
So, you are saying that the Treasury, which we all own as citizens, is more important than human lives?
What planet do you live on ... ?
I'd rather have a single guaranteed income over the dozens of social programs and tax credits now available. But ultimately I would rather have neither and leave it up to the citizens to love and provide for one another on their own terms as they did before all of these programs.
The dozens of "social programs" derives from the fact that we do not have all the same needs.
It is simplistic to think that throwing money at people will solve a complex problem. It is necessary, but insufficient. Two other criteria are necessary. A job-market that is improving, and a minimum wage that will provide sufficient income for more than a subsistence living.
The first is in the making presently, the second requires further political pressure to overcome a false sense that the country cannot afford it ...
"The country" does not afford (or not) any specific level of minimum wage.
Why not?
Because your BigMac will cost 20 cents more?
Hardly a consideration, el Cheapo ...
I'm all for this. If you give me a mere $80k/yr (adjusted annually for inflation) I promise that I will never be poor again.
I think you are misunderstanding. The reason that, for example, Finland is progressing with their own experiment in this area is that they've figured out that the total cost of all of their welfare programs together ends up being MORE THAN the cost of just giving everyone in the country a recurring cash payment that meets the poverty level.A couple things come to mind while reading that article.
1. Unless I totally misunderstand what I'm reading, it appears to me that the article is saying that since it can be shown that government assistance in the form of a single cash payment is better than the piecemeal, multi-program approach then that is a suitable reason for creating a guaranteed income to all citizens.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I don't see the one being any kind of justification for the other. Government assistance and guaranteed minimum are two entirely different concepts.
Then you're in for a big surprise. You ought to realize that the cost of welfare isn't just the amount of support given to people - it's additionally the cost of running a dozen or so massive organizations, which employ thousands of people to deliver public assistance.2. Where will the money for this guaranteed minimum income come from? Simply ending all current government assistance programs won't free up enough to pay for a guarantee minimum income for everyone.
3. On the other hand, if one accepts the idiotic spinning arguments of those who say the government can spend as much as they want without any economic consequences then yeah...we all should lobby the government to give everyone...oh...a couple hundred thousand a year.
4. btw...TANSTAAFL!
I think you are misunderstanding. The reason that, for example, Finland is progressing with their own experiment in this area is that they've figured out that the total cost of all of their welfare programs together ends up being MORE THAN the cost of just giving everyone in the country a recurring cash payment that meets the poverty level.
Then you're in for a big surprise. You ought to realize that the cost of welfare isn't just the amount of support given to people - it's additionally the cost of running a dozen or so massive organizations, which employ thousands of people to deliver public assistance.
This has been well publicized since last fall. My apologies, I assumed you had read about it.Perhaps you can supply a reference to support this statement? I didn't see anything in the article that says any such thing about Finland...not even at that link about Finland's intention to conduct their experiment.
$20K/yr is only what Americans would be getting, if the Kenyan experiment was directly translated into the US.You got any hard numbers? Or, are you just speculating? In other words, how much would it cost our government to give every citizen a guaranteed income? In fact, how much would that income be? $20k? 30? 50? Whatever...pick a number and multiply it by 3 or 4 hundred million or so. Heck, $20k times 300 million is $6 Trillion. We could stop ALL government spending and not free up enough money to cover that cost.
Has nothing to do with me. Has to do with what the economy will sustain.
**From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Percent of hourly workers at or above the current minimum wageEarlier studies have indicated that some businesses will cut jobs to pay employees more. In February 2014, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report, “The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income,” that explores two scenarios: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 or to $9.00. The report concludes that there are distinct trade-offs. Under the $10.10 scenario, there would likely be a reduction of about 500,000 workers across the labor market, as businesses shed jobs, but about 16.5 million low-wage workers would see substantial gains in their earnings in an average week. Under the $9.00 scenario, the labor force would see a reduction of 100,000 jobs, but an estimated 7.6 million low-wage workers would see a boost in their weekly earnings.
Against raising the minimum wage, excerpt from article above: Critics assert that the real effects of minimum-wage increases are negative: they hurt businesses, raise prices and ultimately are counterproductive for the working poor, as they can lead to unemployment. For a good sense of the partisan argument — and the statistics and studies that are often cited — see these position pieces from the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute and the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
The answer to the question "Is it worth it?" is not clear cut - but neither is the prospect of massive unemployment in the poorest classes the only option. In an economy that is growing jobs, the people laid off will have a chance to be reemployed at the higher minimum wage were it passed by a Dem Congress (both the HofR and the Senate) come next year.
And yes, some will be permanently unemployed unless they return to post-secondary education to obtain a certificate indicating that they have obtained additional skills levels. Which is why such training must be made available free, gratis and for nothing.
The dozens of "social programs" derives from the fact that we do not have all the same needs.
It is simplistic to think that throwing money at people will solve a complex problem. It is necessary, but insufficient. Two other criteria are necessary. A job-market that is improving, and a minimum wage that will provide sufficient income for more than a subsistence living.
The first is in the making presently, the second requires further political pressure to overcome a false sense that the country cannot afford it ...
Good luck with either of those. MY GUESS: There will NEVER be enough decent paying jobs for everyone who needs and wants one...EVER AGAIN.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?