Well, we should really keep in mind a few things when discussing potential side-benefits such as people using their freed up time to engage in healthier activities. 1) That they are just that....side-benefits....Let us not lose focus on the main purpose of a guaranteed wage, or similar such measures, ie: to allow members of society to simply be able to continually support their basic needs in the face of things such as automation-induced job loss. So if it happens to be the case that a widespread increase in people with more active or recreational lifestyles is unlikely (not that I believe it is) the absence of that potential benefit is no reason on its own to condemn the proposal, as such was never its main aim in the first place (only a possible beneficial side-effect). 2) If we are to delve deeper into the question of time being used for increased recreational activity anyway,...we should also note that what counts as useful or beneficial, recreationally speaking, lies completely in the eye of the person or people choosing to (or not to) participate in the activity. And there is a whole lot more when it comes to recreation than exercise and sports. So just because one does not choose to take a walk, or play golf, does not mean that their life has not still been improved by their time having been freed up. Perhaps they choose some other activity which was of enjoyment or use to them. If you yourself did not have to work,....what exactly would you do with that extra time? Would a portion of it go to being more active? And what of the rest of it? Would you consider the portion you used doing something other than sports and exercise as wasteful? Would you consider it an injustice imposed on you by someone else, to have your time freed up only for you to then choose to dedicate none of it to increased activity?...Would you simply choose to continue working anyway? As keep in mind that not having to work doesn't mean that you are being disallowed from working. By freeing up a person's time, one simply gives them options...and the freedom to do as they please. 3) But...with all that said,...let's go back and take another look at your contention of current trends indicating that people wont be using their time for exercise and sports; putting aside for a moment the fact, as shown above (1 and 2), that that doesn't really matter, even if true,....you claimed that people today who are on public assistance don't use their time for walks or golf....but that begs the question...just how much free time do people on welfare actually have??....You seem to assume that they have a lot, due to not working, but the truth of the matter is that most recipients of public assistance do work, and some even more so than the average citizen, holding down multiple jobs. In fact, according to one Berkley study, 73% of welfare families work, and 53% of all the welfare dollars spent goes to such working poor. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages/ 4) But let us suppose that such a person does actually have the time to dedicate to sports and exercise. The other question that gets begged is whether or not they have sufficient access to the necessary facilities as well. Is there a sidewalk nearby their house that they can use? Is there a local gym in their neighborhood?.....Can they afford that gym's membership?....Certainly, if a person is already so barely scrapping by that they require welfare,...spending money to go on a golf outing each week probably isn't going to be very high on their priorities list, assuming there's one nearby. A person having more money to spend, as per a guaranteed wage, addresses this to some extent. But I thought this was such a significant consideration, that I included a provision for it in my own solution to the automation issue, which I think you've seen...I am fortunate enough to live not too far from a community center. The yearly membership at a community center here is only $30,...up from $20 a little a while ago, but still very affordable even for the poor....the main problem with them in my opinion is that there are far too few of places like these, and the ones that do exist tend to be (understandably) crowded. So, part of my proposal was to increase the number and hours of such places, as well as do the same for other recreation-based facilities. Summary:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A proposal not adequately demonstrating some beneficial side-effect does not mean the proposal is bad. 2. It's not our place to tell people how to use 'free time',...it's enough that we merely afford it, and enable them to use it in the way they see fit. 3. Most current welfare recipients work. So it can't be said that freeing up time for folks will lead to activity levels seen among that group. 4. Access to current recreational facilities is limited, and many welfare recipients cannot afford the cost of something like a private gym or golf course. Note, I am not saying any of this as some sort of justification for a guaranteed wage....simply pointing out that the counterarguments of it along this line are insufficient when it comes to refuting its viability. BTW,....as long as we're talking about recreation and stuff,....what do you think about what I posted here regarding that subject? -Meta
An economy is fueled by productive forces. Money is a mere medium of exchange, the value of which is relative to available physical resources, goods, and services. Dumping large sums of cash on a market does not create wealth. Socialist solutions are simply unsustainable. Since they are unproductive, in fact counter-productive in every sense, their damaging effects become more evident the more they are implemented. It's easy to see their effects in Venezuela, but not so easy in Canada.
Well I'm referring to TANF specifically. There are lots of different welfare programs such as WIC that the working poor use, but I think we both know that's not what I'm talking about, or what anyone is talking about when comparing welfare to a minimum basic income.
TANF?....I don't believe you've mentioned anything specifically about TANF before now. The way I see it, if you want to only discuss a certain specific type of welfare assistance, then its helpful to mention that sooner rather than latter. Simply saying welfare or "public assistance" is too broad if you're trying to say something about anything other than welfare in general. Because, as you said,...there are lots of different welfare programs. The study I linked to includes several of the major ones, including TANF,....and I should also point out that TANF is actually by-far the smallest program included in that study, accounting for only 2.6% of federal spending on those programs and 6% of participants (probably due to the T in TANF). And as for WIC,...its even smaller, and as such was not included as one of the majors of the study at all...(so you are correct when you say no-ones talking about it...) Anyways...............per the link I posted, many TANF families work just as recipients of the other assistance programs work, even if not as frequently. And whether we're talking welfare in general, or TANF specifically, the points I listed before still apply. Summary:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A proposal not adequately demonstrating some beneficial side-effect does not mean the proposal is bad. 2. It's not our place to tell people how to use 'free time',...it's enough that we merely afford it, and enable them to use it in the way they see fit. 3. Most/many welfare recipients work (or 32% of TANF recipients). It can't be said that freeing up time will lead to activity levels seen among that group. 4. Access to current recreational facilities is limited, and many welfare recipients cannot afford the cost of something like a private gym or golf course. Note again, I am not saying any of this as some sort of justification for a guaranteed wage....simply pointing out that the counterarguments of it along this line are insufficient when it comes to refuting its viability. And again,....what do you think about what I posted here regarding facilitating recreation in a more direct manor?? -Meta
If "productivity" truly is your concern...I would point out that often (VERY OFTEN) productivity can be increased by having fewer people contributing to the productivity effort. (Too many cooks; ya wanna help, don't help; and all that!) Productivity, the fuel of an economy, CAN be increased by paying some people to stay out of the way. And doing may actually result in a MUCH more robust economy with everyone working...and everyone staying out of the way...having MUCH more available.
How will you or anyone differ the different sort of works done with a minimum wage for all ... including the different responsibilities, positions in management and so on?
I would hope that when the notion comes into play...it will play out within the capitalistic system. I am a capitalist myself...so I hope it is the economic system that prevails. I dare to suppose NO WORK need be done for the minimum income (not wage)...and that wages be paid to people who actually do work in addition to the minimum income. Obviously, better minds than mine will have to work out the details...to see if and how it can work in various form...using various schemes. But it does appear to me that the need for human labor seems to be decreasing, which means that the cost of human labor will continue on a downward spiral...and the availability of jobs that humans can do will continue to decrease. If I am wrong...if suddenly a whole bunch of jobs come on the scene where it makes sense for companies to pay decent salaries to the numbers of people who need and want decent salary jobs... ...I will be shown to be wrong. But, Mandelus, I doubt any president, any congress, any economic policy, or anyone in the private sector...will ever produce the kinds and numbers of decent paying jobs required. We simply have to find another way to insure that everyone has the wherewithal to exist...and to continue to fuel the economy. The same way we do it now.
Humanity has in many things the urge to self-destruction ... or to shoot at least their own possessions! We have a growing world population and the total number of jobs is reduced on the other hand! Why? Automation! While it was only Robots who took over the jobs of several people in the productions in the first, the automation now takes place thanks to IT in all areas! And the idiotic argument that there will always be work that can not make a machine or IT system, or even that these things have to be developed by humans, belongs in the trash can! In the end, however, always the cost question! As long as it is cheaper instead of an expensive machine to make things in cheap countries, including transport costs, there will still be human labor ... only where? We are attracted by advertising as a customer with nice things like I-Phone and whatever, but how should we afford all these things without jobs or only with a mini-income? Apple produces EVERYTHING in China at salary costs, which are even in China at the bottom of any form of mini-poppy, but sell the things at prices as if they are made in the USA to top lounges. Why? Profit! And then comes this stupid capitalist argument that in China prices are lower for same things as in the USA or Europe and so people can buy them too. Ridiculous lie! Yes, they are cheaper, because we consumers in the USA and Europe subsidize the lower prices with the extraordinary prices! I am not a communist or an extreme left-winger, but I am absolutely no friend of a human-hostile capitalism where the profit is above the people in the ranking and where a reasonable policy does not set these people on a reasonable border with laws etc. People work to be able to live and not to survive!
"Welfare" is a broad term, that includes programs that are not cash benefits. However, I've already discussed that. Rather than take us away from the subject, let me try to advance it with this: OK fine, you don't find "welfare" as a proxy for a minimum basic income. However within the vast number of people on "welfare," there is a large population of people on cash assistance that do not work (or at least do not work in the legitimate economy). That is a great pool to study the effects of cash assistance on individuals and families over time. In fact, I'm pretty sure such studies have been done (although maybe not in the context of minimum basic income). So if you think that a minimum basic income will turn it's recipients into artists and poets, the data to support that should be found there. As far as your link, I'm pretty sure I've seen you post that multiple times and I've pretty sure I've given a detailed response at least once. Suffice to say, once you remove the whole issue of where realistically the money comes from, you can dream up all kinds of scenarios.
That is one of the least logical arguments I've seen you make on this issue, Mike. No one has ever said that a minimum basic income will turn its recipients into artists and poets...nor has anyone even come close to intimating that. A minimum basic income will provide most people (not everyone, actually) with money to purchase necessities of life. We can arrange it so that the money is script...and can be used only for essentials. That way, it cannot be used to buy drugs or booze...and accumulation of it would do criminals little good. The day is coming, Mike, where sufficient decent paying jobs for all the people who need and want one...are going to be so scarce...very few people will obtain them. We have to figure a way to see that the people who cannot obtain them (or who decide not to obtain them) will be able to live. While we are doing that...why not figure a way for them to live comfortably...rather than just barely scraping by?
Money isn't wealth. It doesn't matter how plentiful the money supply, all that matters is how much people are producing. They don't produce more becuase there is more money. Tooth fairy economics just makes everyone worse off. Except the politicians and their wealthy cronies.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say there...but you did not get it said in understandable form. You might try separating what looks to be three issues from one paragraph into three. People arbitrarily saying, "That cannot work"...can easily make things worse for everyone.
Well I think we agree that it's a serious problem, but not much else it seems. If we could just give people money to solve problems, you could do that now and solve problems, you wouldn't have to wait for some future Robopocalypse. The fact that you can't just give everyone enough money to solve all their problems today doesn't bode well for being able to do it in the future.
I'm not thinking of solving THEIR problems, Mike...I am thinking about solving OUR problems. We will not have enough jobs for all of US. Us...Mike...we, you , me, and all the rest of US. Something has to be done now...not wait until it falls on our head like an anvil. It is coming. IF not a guaranteed right to life and shelter...WHAT? That actually is what a guaranteed income is about...a guarantee to life. What do you suggest as an alternative? Give me any kind of alternative? The politicians are suggesting CREATING MORE JOBS! Think about that.
I've stated more than once that I don't have a solution for this, but I don't think magic money is the solution.
Well...consideration of a guaranteed basic income makes a lot more sense than...considering nothing. I think it has lots of possibilities...most of which are positive. If I could...I'd ask you, and the others here, to give it more consideration.
we ought to consider capitalism since it just moved 600 million in China out of poverty; not with welfare but with work. Do you understand?
Do YOU understand that it no longer makes lots of sense to pay humans a decent wage to do the kinds of jobs most humans can do? That is why jobs are moving to third world countries...because they can get them done for 60 cents an hour. Your love affair with capitalism notwithstanding...the jobs are not going to be there for much longer. And we have got to deal with that problem. What do you suggest? How about getting a bunch of American corporations to pay a living wage to people doing grunt work...and to get rid of all machines so that grunt work becomes more abundant??? What do you think about that idea?
no don't understand at all given that 100 million American make enough to have iphone supercomputer toys in their pockets at $140/month!!! if it no longer makes sense who pays for these 100 million iphones?????????
great idea liberals are anti science and now anti machine and anti technology. If you had been around when they invented the farm plow that put 99% of human being out of work we would still all be subsistence farmers!! Slow?????
Okay...we'll go with your take...even though it contradicts most of the economists I've seen writing on the subject. We will have more than enough decent paying jobs for everyone who needs and wants one. The notion of lots of manufacturing jobs being outsourced to places where labor costs are minimal is just an illusion. With thinking like yours...we have Utopia going for us. - - - Updated - - - What are you raving about???? Do things honestly have to be spelled out that carefully for you?
Do you understand there is no limit to the number of jobs that could be done? The US workforce registered 24 million in 1900, and 160,000,000 in 2016. Unemployment rate: 5 1900 2.4 1901 2.7 1902 2.6 1903 4.8 1904 3.1 1905 0.8 1906 1.8 1907 8.5 1908 5.2 1909 5.9 1910 6.2 1911 5.2 1912 4.4 1913 8 1914 9.7 1915 4.8 1916 4.8 1917 1.4 1918 2.3 1919 4 1920 11.9 1921 7.6 1922 3.2 1923 5.5 1924 4 1925 1.9 1926 4.1 1927 4.4 1928 3.2 1929 8.9 1930 15.9 1931 23.6 1932 24.9 1933 21.7 1934 20.1 1935 17 1936 14.3 1937 19 1938 17.2 1939 14.6 1940 9.9 1941 4.7 1942 1.9 1943 1.2 1944 1.9 1945 3.9 1946 3.6 1947 3.4 1948 4.3 1949 6.5 1950 3.7 1951 3.2 1952 2.9 1953 4.9 1954 4.9 1955 4 1956 4.2 1957 5.8 1958 6 1959 5.2 1960 6.6 1961 5.8 1962 5.7 1963 5.6 1964 4.9 1965 4 1966 3.9 1967 5.9 1968 5.8 1969 4.9 1970 5.1 1971 8.1 1972 7.9 1973 7.5 1974 6.4 1975 5.9 1976 6.3 1977 7.5 1978 8.6 1979 10.4 1980 8 1981 7.3 1982 6.7 1983 6.6 1984 5.7 1985 5.4 1986 5.4 1987 6.4 1988 7.3 1989 7.3 1990 6.6 1991 5.6 1992 5.3 1993 4.6 1994 4.3 1995 4 1996 4.2 1997 5.7 1998 5.8 1999 5.7 2000 5.3 2001 4.7 2002 4.6 2003 5 2004 7.8 2005 9.8 2006 9.1 2007 8.3 2008 8 2009 6.6 2010 5.7 2011 4.9 2012 7.5 2013 6.2 2014 5.2 2015 4.9 2016 Jobs have been going over seas and taken over by machinery the whole time! Can you imagine on your own why the unemployment rate is not 99.999999999% right now? Hint: It's because we always find better things to do with our time. Paying people to not work is to incentivize non-production. Never mind the fact that the money you pay them would have to first be stolen from someone else, or conjured out of thin air, increasing the money supply and so devaluing it according to the laws of supply and demand, which is the effective equivalent of a direct confiscation of the most value from the poorest and effectively nullifying the real value of the payments you propose making to them. Reasons not to do it: It's immoral. <in case you have principles It's counter-productive. <In case you're a nihilist utilitarian
Right. We could have people dig holes and fill them in each day. No limit. You are right. How much do you think anyone will pay to people to dig holes and fill them in? Oh, I see now. No problem at all. The many economist struggling with this issue are wasting their time. They ought to listen to you...right? I can imagine anything. Well...for me, that mean playing more golf. What is your point? I have principles, Max...and one of them is not to consider people like you to be unworthy of serious consideration. You are testing me on that. It may be if you are someone who guesses about things like that.
