Why the world should adopt a basic income

Nope! You forget that, here, you are in an Economics Forum.

The job-market determines the range of salary you could get because you are in perpetual competition with others for the same work. (In most sectors of the economy.)

You are fooling only yourself if you think there is something particularly and individually "cool" about you personally. It is your "attributes" that determine how qualified you may or may not be for work in any given profession. And those attributes are most determined by your level of educational accomplishment.

It is TOGETHER that we get what we want typically in a free-enterprise economic system but also with freely chosen representatives to city, state and national governments.

And there's the rub in the words "freely chosen":
*First of all, America has one of the worst voter-turnouts of any developed country today. (See here.)
*For a long, long time, the popular-vote has been manipulated in the US. In 1812, the 12th Amendment ensconced the Electoral College* (and its winner-take-all voting) into deciding who wins the presidency. Which has proven - in this fair-and-honest democracy of ours - FIVE TIMES in history to have elected as PotUS the loser of the popular-vote. (The latest mistake having been the present occupant of the Oval Office.)
*Moreover, in that very same year (1812), a governor in Massachusetts invented Gerrymandering; which allows the partitioning of voting-districts to favor the outcome of a particular party based upon past voting numbers.

Nowhere else is the voting public so manipulated as to vote in a pattern that will favor a particular political-party.

Except maybe China or North Korea ...

*Yeah, yeah, it's in the original Constitution. As if that was or should be the initial and final document that FIXES how a nascent democracy should function.

 

We don't know that. You have simply asserted that.

Mutually beneficial? Let's remember that the minimum wage is enforced with violence. If it were mutually beneficial, it would not need to be.

You are arguing for violence. I am arguing for peace.

 

There would be no United States if it were not for the system by which the states choose the president. It was a precondition for the states constituting their general government. The small states never would have agreed to enter into a union with the larger states without such a system (as well as the senate).

Read a freaking book, for crying out loud.

 

You would have to reject supply and demand to suggest otherwise. My advice? Perhaps don't!

No, you are demanding the imposition of policy which will harm exchange. It is a hypocritical position, nothing more.

 

It will "in your opinion" harm exchange. Which is why you feel you are justified in advocating for the initiation of violence against innocent people.

Again, you are for violence, while I am for peace.

 

Wrong again. It's a shame that you demand repetition.

Thus has nothing to do with opinion. This is simply communication of what supply and demand concludes. The empirical evidence shows that monopsonistic power is the norm. We therefore know, unless we reject supply and demand, that minimum wages generate employment opportunities.

If you want to have an opinion that runs counter to supply and demand then be more honest with your rejection of supply and demand.

 

No, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't.

Your "economics" requires the initiation of violence against innocent people. I reject it on moral grounds.

 

You use emotional language only to avoid the economics. It isn't my economics mind you, it is supply and demand. That theory, and resulting empirical evidence, confirms that you want to destroy exchange opportunity. Your choices are therefore really limited. You either admit the hypocrisy in the fake libertarian position, or you reject supply and demand.

 

You're the one that wants to place limits on exchange opportunity, not me.

 

So CROWDFUND this socialist pipe dream already. It's such a fabulous idea, that trillion$ will be donated the very 1st day.

 

Sorry, but making stuff up won't work. I've informed you of the nature of supply and demand. You can't dispute the analysis provided. Empirical evidence confirms the existence of monopsonistic power. You'd also have to make ludicrously utopian assumptions to apply supply and demand to your argument.

I have to ask again. Given supply and demand demonstrates the hypocrisy of the fake libertarian position, are you going to reject supply and demand? There are alternatives. Perhaps go full blown classical and refer to the labour theory of value?

 

You've made "economic" (dubious) claims and you use these to justify your advocacy for the initiation of violence against innocents. I can't get on board with your authoritarian position. I prefer to leave people free to make their own economic choices.

 

Again, you are making stuff up. I've simply referred to supply and demand. We know that monopsonistic power is the norm. We also know that such power is delivered through job search frictions.

You have an ideological position. Fair enough. However, you are incapable of embedding that position within a real world perspective. That your argument is inconsistent with orthodox analysis into supply and demand is bad enough. That supply and demand concludes that your ideology would impose a coercive outcome which destroys exchange shows severe ideological inconsistency.

 

Oh good. So you don't want to use violence to force people to pay the price you think they should. Good to know. Then we have nothing to debate.

 

There isn't a debate. This has only been about an education of supply and demand. You now know that you cannot support your position with supply and demand. Your next step is up to you!

 

You have an 'economic reason' for your calls for violence. I choose the 'no violence' option. That's why I oppose stealing people's money to provide a basic income.

 

No, you chose to misapply supply and demand in support of ideological position. A correction for that misapplication leads to realisation that the position is necessarily hypocritical. Demanding that exchange opportunity is destroyed is false libertarianism.

 

My position is that it's wrong to initiate violence against innocent people in order to achieve one's 'economic objectives'. But then again, I'm not a fascist.

 

No, not a fascist. Your position is standard right wing, using ideological language that ignores real world economics. That you support the destruction of economic exchange is a shame!

 

You keep glossing over that your position is the one that uses violence to interfere with economic exchange.

 

What position is that? This has been purely about your support for destruction of exchange, enabled by misapplication of supply and demand.

 

Your position is that force should be used against employers to enforce a minimum wage. I find the initiation of violence against innocent people abhorrent, so I can't get on board with your violent program.

 

Why not go one step further of basic for people?
And dream of people getting a decent living as standard?

I know there will be some who have worked very hard, and sometimes what is considered good and evil is seen as thoughts of children, but, if everyone gets a decent standard of living (hopefully some Star Trek/Orville way) then you can still want more, and you'd still have a decent standard of living; where your children can go to higher education if they want to.
You know, the world has war lords in guerrilla warfare stopping people being free and being safe too, right. - I'm understanding that, these people, live and die by the machine gun or machete and may fear no one and want nothing from this idea, because they've got what they want and this is just a stupid crazy dream that'll get me killed in their real world, their reality, but, wouldn't it be nice?
To have a decent living to fall back on, so you didn't need guns or machetes to have the power, the women.

 

At the time minimum wage was $5.25, I believe, and no, he was not worth that.

 

Sez you.

Surprise, surprise, surprise ...