it looks like a good idea, but the counter argument would be that it will be abused by the lazy. a basic income will have political support because it goes to everyone. it also has the positive multiplier effect on the economy because it will encourage trickle up economics rather than trickle down economics. the rich don't create jobs when they have money, the poor do so a basic income will position them to do that.
Unemployment compensation requires a work ethic to abuse; we already have a basic income with welfare. why not simply remove restrictions on that; so that it may complement unemployment compensation in at-will employment States.
the welfare in america is a joke, its not a basic income, its nothing when compared to what other socialist countries get. no one in the middle class would want it if restrictions were removed, and unemployment compensation perpetuates the failure of trickle down economics. unemployment compensation gives the rich a safety net for their own failures as capitalists to create jobs, with the basic income new jobs will be created by the poor who have income to spend. even the most ignorant capitalist will find a way to profit and create jobs from the new wealth of the poor, and even the poor would have the opportunity to become capitalists themselves, instead of depending on a handout from unemployment compensation.
Most people live from paycheck to paycheck so you want to eliminate unemployment compensation is cruel. Everyone who works contributes to unemployment comp so these people have a right to collect giving them the necessary time to gain new employment. The problem now is there are more people then there are jobs to be filled and what jobs that are available pay a lot less then what these people were earning before.
More socialist countries also have more unitary forms of government. Sort of like having have a State government at the federal level. Our Founding Fathers provided us with a Doctrine of Separation of Powers, for a reason. In the US, the legal and physical infrastructure already exists to solve simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. All that is required, is a moral of goodwill toward men. You may be missing the point about equal protection of the law for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic; by being able to simply quit or cease work, Labor should still have recourse to unemployment compensation for being, simply unemployed. With that form of basic and market friendly income, potential Labor could go to school for as long as necessary to command a prevailing, market based wage. And, the Right, then, really could morally blame the poor for staying poor on an at-will basis.
that is better than the system we have now, but it still doesn't solve for the failure of capitalists to create good jobs? we will still have big businesses that are too big to fail, labor will have taxpayer money to go back to school but if the jobs aren't there they will not be able to use their new education and skills.. the basic income will move wealth to the bottom instead of the top, it will be the direct opposite of trickle down economics. under the failed theory of trickle down economics, moving more money to the rich will create jobs. what really creates jobs is moving more money to the poor as they are the foundation of any economy, spending at the bottom is what trickles up. this will give labor the opportunity to become capitalists themselves instead of depending on them for a living. the new wealth at the bottom would be used to invest in small businesses to compete against the big businesses, which are presently run by the worst capitalists possible.
I agree to disagree; no Person is perfect. Many mistakes happen along the way. Capitalists want to make more capital, even if it may mean creating job functions that require labor. It really isn't up to them regarding a necessary job function. Simply reserving labor through equal application of the law means that Labor could simply pursue some other opportunity cost than directly competing in the market for labor.
capitalists aren't perfect, but the system we have in place encourages bad capitalists, rather than good capitalists. its rather obvious with too big to fail, unemployment, and under employment, and a generation of 'entitled welfare takers' or net recipients, etc... the only way to defeat the modern day empire of failed capitalists is to empower the poor with redistribution of wealth in trickle up economics, rather than trickle down economics which empowers the rich.
Being able to simply quit and still obtain unemployment compensation that hypothetically clears our poverty guidelines, means Labor could "vote with their feet" regarding better jobs.
unemployment compensation allows abuse of capitalism with 'job jumping', employers don't hire them with all sorts of excuses that attack the laborers character for not committing to one job. there needs to be a place where workers can be relieved from labor without any stipulations.
Employment is the result of the employers need, and seldom can an employer guarantee it to be for ones lifetime. Unemployment compensation is a safety net for employees who due to circumstances or events beyond their control become unneeded by their employer. Employees, unless contractually agreed, are always free to exercise their right to seek new employment elsewhere, and cannot be stopped by their current employer. That place has always existed, and is eventually occupied by all including those who may never have worked.
with equal protection of the laws regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States, Labor could simply quit and receive unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.
You continually harp on "equal protection of the laws" by which the 14th amendment of our Constitution requires all laws to be applied equally upon the citizens by State and local governments, without regard to race, gender, or other differences. The unemployment compensation law is applied equally as it is written. You therefore appear to disagree with the law which was written only to provide some aid to those who lose their employment for reasons beyond their control. Quitting a job make that individual totally responsible for their loss of income, which a rational person would either already have a new job to go to, or have saved up enough to live on until a new job was found. Neither government nor those working and paying taxes should be made responsible for those who purposely make bad decisions.
employment at will; means, employment at the will of either party. why not read up on it. there is no legal basis to deny or disparage Labor from unemployment compensation on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
You can also drink at will, but that doesn't make you immune to the consequences of doing so. Quit your job if you will, it's your choice. Requiring me to pay your bills when you do... that's not the same thing.
not very good at re-circulating our money; why not improve it with a better oil pump than, trickle down.
Not all markets are the same and their effect on the circulation of wealth within and economy vary greatly. The greatest economic effect is achieved when wealth circulates broadly, across markets. History shows us that increasing the amount of wealth circulating in financial markets will at some point begin to impede broader market wealth circulation and reduce growth in economic activity. The economy of the US has once again reached that point and some action is needed to encourage wealth away from the financial markets and back into the broader economy.
