Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

You're making no sense again. We know that the basic income guarantee cannot solve poverty. Poverty continues.

 

In what way, would recourse to a basic income, not solve simple poverty? You claim what you claim, but make no attempt to defend that claim with any form of rational argument.

How would a poverty of money continue for any "market participants" in that economy, if they have recourse to an income, that solves for that very social dilemma, under our form of Capitalism?

 

You've already been told twice.

 

incorrect, it is a relative measure in your Republic.

It is measured in $ a relative currency. And by relative standards. eg compared to the median income.
It may also be measured by relative standards such as access to medical care, housing and education and so on.


It is by definition a relative standard you are applying.

You cannot be empirically poor. Because it is a relative measurement.
You can only ever be, poor compared to something else.

Don't bother deflecting with semantics, poverty simply means to be poor.

If your Republic is for example the USA then poverty has long since been eliminated in all practical terms.

It's not Ethopia.


And instead we move on to a discussion on relative living standards.
Social justice.

Is the government i pay money to for income insurance, repaying me enough when I am unemployed?
Are the schemes i contribute to, that financially look after the sick or disabled.. working as I wish them to be?
Is the amount I am being paid from my labours or investments a fair price?



A basic income will indeed solve poverty.
The better question is, is poverty a big enough issue to warrant it?

It does after all bring other people closer to poverty to tax them more.
And also it encourages a bad work ethic, where people are rewarded for not labouring. For not contributing to society or even supporting themselves.

Which has two negative effects. One on the individual themselves and the other on the total wealth available to society.

Further more it is bureaucratically wasteful to tax people only to return them the money. Those people collecting and returning those taxes could be put to work more constructively for the same resource expenditure.

Maybe Norway or Sweden have a basic income for all. I am pretty sure there is an actual model available to study.

 

Neither time, was a right wing, "twice a day moment". You merely present propaganda and rhetoric instead of any valid argument.

Recourse to an income simply for being "naturally unemployed" must solve simple poverty when due merely to lack of gainful employment. The right wing has no solution other than to help the rich get richer faster.

 

Poverty is defined in our Republic; it is not relative in our Republic.

The point is, simple poverty can be solved with simple recourse to unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed solves for simple poverty and it must translate to economic momentum, somewhere.

Keep in mind, QE already happened.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here ...

 

Can't imagine what you are getting at.

If you can't keep a thread alive by quoting a reference in the exchange, then try a Message Board. It might be more suited to your purposes ...

 

I referred to economic reality. That poverty reflects high economic needs is a slice of obviously. Why do you think the basics of poverty analysis refers to equivalence scaling? That pre-welfare inequalities put a constraint on the effectiveness of a basic income guarantee is also a slice of obviousness. If you have to impose high marginal rates of tax on the lower paid, reflecting the tax dodging/evasion of the higher paid, you undoubtedly will create work disincentives or be forced to employ a low minimum income.

None of this is left or right wing. Both left wingers celebrating the basic income guarantee and right wingers celebrating the negative income tax have to consider economic reality...

 

Not my fault you are lousy at asking questions.

Recourse to an income simply for being "naturally unemployed" must solve simple poverty when due merely to lack of gainful employment. The right wing has no solution other than to help the rich get richer faster.

 

You refer to nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

Recourse to an income simply for being "naturally unemployed" must solve simple poverty when due merely to lack of gainful employment. The right wing has no solution other than to help the rich get richer faster.

Why do You believe Any labor market participant would be worse off with, hypothetically, fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation and with the minimum wage at fifteen dollars an hour, in the US economy?

 

Given you whinge about the right wing and then use right wing ideology without knowing it, that's a laugh.

Try critiquing what I said. Good luck!

 

Please clarify which republic you are refering to?


Poverty is defined using relative measures.
Not empiric ones.

For example, your wealth is not defined empirically by how many chickens you own and how much they weigh.
A dollar figure may be used for example. Which is a relative measure of wealth and not an empiric one.

None of the measures you use to calculate poverty are empiric. They are all relative.


15 dollar minimum wage does not solve poverty. It simply moves the goal post.
It raises inflation so that 15 dollars buys less,

You cannot change the value of things so easily.

So we adopted minimum wage in the UK. Are the poor richer?
Answer: No.

Prices went up.

 

nothing but dogma. why not try, working through the exercise.

 

You confuse poverty with being poor. We can solve for poverty, staying poor is an individual choice.

 

Not for every one. If I was born in Ethopia or Somalia I may have no choice about remaining poor at all.

Poverty = being poor.
That's it. That is all the word means.

 

only if you want to beg the question to indulge in special pleading.

Poverty is officially defined, in the US. Only poor is relative.

 

I've told you to critique, not whinge. Here is the comment again: "That poverty reflects high economic needs is a slice of obviously. Why do you think the basics of poverty analysis refers to equivalence scaling? That pre-welfare inequalities put a constraint on the effectiveness of a basic income guarantee is also a slice of obviousness. If you have to impose high marginal rates of tax on the lower paid, reflecting the tax dodging/evasion of the higher paid, you undoubtedly will create work disincentives or be forced to employ a low minimum income. None of this is left or right wing. Both left wingers celebrating the basic income guarantee and right wingers celebrating the negative income tax have to consider economic reality..."

 

This is innocent. Poverty analysis includes absolute, subjective and relative approaches. There are also approaches which reject the binary and adopt deprivation index.

 

it is about, simple economics. it should not be very difficult to "pioneer" this public policy, but for, right wing, "hate on the poor". Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour equivalent for being unemployed, provides that rational choice in practice, not just in theory.

 

Not in the US; we have the Federal doctrine. There are no excuses only results.

Why should Labor have to "work hard" just to find a job? Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed is much more rational and better use of capital resources.

 

I don't want your blubbering. I asked you to critique my statement: "That poverty reflects high economic needs is a slice of obviously. Why do you think the basics of poverty analysis refers to equivalence scaling? That pre-welfare inequalities put a constraint on the effectiveness of a basic income guarantee is also a slice of obviousness. If you have to impose high marginal rates of tax on the lower paid, reflecting the tax dodging/evasion of the higher paid, you undoubtedly will create work disincentives or be forced to employ a low minimum income. None of this is left or right wing. Both left wingers celebrating the basic income guarantee and right wingers celebrating the negative income tax have to consider economic reality..."

Why can't you?

 

If poverty is officially defined, then so is poor.

It will however officially define it using relative terms.
And there is no escaping this.

 

Because, the federal Doctrine does not provide for Excuses, Only results.

Under Capitalism (and why socialism should learn how to merely use it, for All of its capital worth in modern times; we Only need to ensure, Capital Circulates!

Providing recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis means, no more poverty and a good "official" excuse for abolishing pan handing.

 

We have unemployment insurance.
When you work you put aside a pert of your wages in a government run insurance scheme.
Then when you are in unemployment you get to claim off of your insurance payments.

Money for nothing is never a better use of capital resources than money in return for something useful.