381–390 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimum wage doesn't grow with inflation because the point of inflation is to steal wealth from the working class: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
And the point of COLA is to give it back. You can't look at half a system in isolation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. Then why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the world? I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those circumstances.
You might now know this if you live in North America because Australia hardly enters our consciousness or our news cycles, but in many parts of the world Australia has a reputation of being a very innovative country, especially in physical engineering and software. Part of it has to do with their anti-authoritarian heritage and survivalist mindset--they don't take hierarchy too seriously. Whether their creativity is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I choose to jump through bureaucratic and degrading welfare programs for vouchers and discounts when I can opt-in to a superior UBI program that gives me cash which I can use for anything? I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. E.g. What good are food stamps when I have no gas (or car) to get to the store? There are some social services that are necessary and bene…
> I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life. Some people do not get good enough education and do not know how to effectively allocate resources. > There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness. Do you mean the other way around? Necessary social services should be the foundation wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimum wage doesn't grow with inflation because the point of inflation is to steal wealth from the working class: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
That's not the point of inflation, and I don't think that article backs what you're saying up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. Then why not any of those places become the innovation engine of the world? I heard people would become more creative and innovative under those circumstances.
Who gives a duck? If people are well taken care of, I'm take less innovation, since usually it's useless customer goods innovation these days.
There will always be a group of individuals who are content with the minimum without making any effort. This group will not work to gain more. They are just content at not working and getting the minimum wage and additional government handouts.
My experience is from a communist country. The shoddy craftsmanship for buildings, cars, services all around in my opinion was direct result for all the promised universal basic "something". In the beginning it all seemed good and well, but as more and more people got on the UB something, the less and less production/service was done.
This is not a communist/socialist economic problem, but a human nature problem in my opinion. We always go for the least amount of effort, for the most amount of reward.
To this effect, I cannot see how to prevent UBI pushing the lowest common level of participation in the society as a producer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This presumes that societies are run and tax so as to provide equal benefits to all. This is disproven by, I dunno, the history of every society.
Taxes are not equally paid either. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you want to limit wealth? Do you want to ban entrepreneurship? Do you want communism?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/16/us-now-ta...
What I want is for the value workers create to be returned to them, not hoovered up by the wealthy in some distortive, unjustifiable scheme that prizes Capital ownership over everything else, including the lives and well-being of the majority of citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people at the top don't have much money (as a percentage of their holdings), they have "wealth", where wealth means productive enterprises like e.g. toilet paper factories. The people at the bottom work in toilet paper factories and are given money which they use to buy toilet paper from the people at the top, and thus there is a productive equilibrium between the wiping masses and the owner of the means of wipin…
> When the people at the top make less money, they invest less money into new toilet paper R&D and new factories. This (and its inverse, "when the people at the top make more money, they invest it so it does good for the whole economy") is the foundation of trickle-down economics. It's been empirically proven not to work over the past 40 years.
If you had a dial labelled "wealth redistribution percentage", trickle-down economics says you that if you move it towards "0%" everything will get better. What I am saying is that if you start moving it towards "100%", everything will get better, but if you keep moving it for a long time, everything will get worse again. It is not clear to me that this has been empirically proven to be false.
The problem with UBI is what others have already pointed out. My conclusions are from personal observation, so it is anecdotal and it is a generalization as most societal woes are. There will always be a group of individuals who are content with the minimum without making any effort. This group will not work to gain more. They are just content at not working and getting the minimum wage and additional government hand…
As long as others work more than basic subsistence we'll be fine.