What are your thoughts on a basic income instead of welfare programs?

[Grindstone]

I don't remember ever saying I was in support of establishing a minimum income - I'm pointing out your flagrant misuse of 'natural selection' to rationalize your own world-view.

Not that there's anything wrong your world-view, it is your own and we all have one. It's an intrinsic part of the human experience.

Natural selection goes out the window the moment we are dealing with socially constructed pressures, like poverty and income.

It's not 'natural' in the most literal sense. Stop using it as a way to rationalize your world-view because it's like trying to see the craters on Mars by looking through a tube of toilet paper.

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm attacking you or your viewpoints but I'm very tired of seeing people misrepresent natural selection as a mechanism to provide them with some facade of credibility.

Besides, the dog-eat-dog mentality is a vestige of Darwin's own limited scope (perpetuated by Spencer) in his understanding of natural selection and evolutionary theory on the whole. It's not really representative of how nature itself even functions.

I don't feel like you attacked me, no worries there. And yes, I realize that economics doesn't mirror nature exactly, but in it's truest form, it probably should (ie, be productive, have value or an organism that does will take your place). I'll agree to disagree on some of your other replies, I can see no middle ground will be reached, you seem as stubborn as me.

 

[Antics]

I don't feel like you attacked me, no worries there. And yes, I realize that economics doesn't mirror nature exactly, but in it's truest form, it probably should (ie, be productive, have value or an organism that does will take your place). I'll agree to disagree on some of your other replies, I can see no middle ground will be reached, you seem as stubborn as me.

Feel free to shoot me a PM if you want to chat about it some more.

I'd like to.

 

[Benji49]

This is one of those questions that turns into a morality debate but should be addressed economically.

Let's look at the numbers. Suppose we give $10K a year, no strings attached (meaning people can go out and supplement their income) to the bottom 20% of the population.

That works out to $10,000 x (300 million x 20%) or 600,000,000,000 or 600 billion dollars.

Total spending by US government was $2.5 trillion in 2013.
Of that total, $672 billion was spent on military and $940 billion was spent on Medicaid and $882 billion was spent on Social Security programs.

Now putting aside all morality, I look at those numbers pretty quick and think hey isn't the US already spending $10K on the poorest 20% of the population. I mean Federal spending on the two biggest social programs equals $1.8 trillion or $6000 for every man, woman and child in the US (assuming population of 300 million).

So all of a sudden the question (for me anyways) isn't should we give $10K a year to poor people in the US, the question are you guys doing that already (I'm Canadian)?

I mean, if poor in the US aren't getting $10k a year from the Federal government, then where the hell is that money going to?

 

[emp]

Funny thing is... we already do this.

For example: Germany

If you are of a sound enough mind to fill out the paperwork, you will get welfare.

Just removing the hoops.

::emp::

 

[jerry55]

But yeah, give dumb people more money because of their inability to acquire it themselves.

L
O
L

If you believe what you wrote then you're really clueless as to why the poor are poor.

 

[(O_o)]

L
O
L

If you believe what you wrote then you're really clueless as to why the poor are poor.

 

[jerry55]

 

[Grindstone]

then where the hell is that money going to?

Oversight spending, mostly. 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 (depending on the source you trust) US jobs are from the government. Most (read none, likely) of those jobs are not minimum wage and for anybody that's not a seasonal employee, come with fairly expensive benefits packages.

 

[JakeStratham]

This is one of those questions that turns into a morality debate but should be addressed economically.

I disagree. Here's why:

Making an economic argument assumes that politicians are interested in lowering aggregate costs. But that assumption is highly optimistic. In fact, I'd argue that it's delusional. From education and healthcare to legislation over unions, drugs - both illicit and legal - and "national security," we can see that lowering costs has never been a driving force (though all have been promoted that way).

To be sure, politicians talk a good game. They argue for economic efficiency on a macro scale, knowing that most voters - the folks they most care to persuade - will never check their assertions.

That's why making an economic argument is useless. Economic efficiency is not on politicians' radar beyond using it as a sound byte. Can't blame them. It delivers a horrible ROI (i.e. votes, cash, security, prestige, and other goodies).

So if politicians aren't interested in economic efficiency, what do they seek to gain? And should the measures they use - i.e. aggression - to gain those things be legitimized by voters.

Thus, we arrive at morality.

 

[_poto_]

When I was younger I was opposed to welfare. Having grown up poor I saw how ghetto people squandered their foodstamps and lived in section 8 housing while buying Cadillacs and big screen tvs. I developed a lot of aversion from seeing that.

As I've gotten older and thought more about the future my views have shifted.

I've also thought more about things like human retirement. What do we do with people when most jobs can be replaced by robots or AI that are cheaper and more efficient? At what point does technology allow us to amplify labor to the point of eliminating 90% of the workforce and how will our economic system and society survive that?

I think there's two paths. Either we keep on going with our present monetary/debt system and end up in a dystopian future with widespread poverty, but an upper class that lives like kings. Or we end up with something where all basic needs are met and a stipend is given to each citizen. If you want to waste it on drugs, that's your choice, but you'll have an equal opportunity to use it to better your life. And if you want to fuck off to the mountains and pursue spiritual enlightenment, you'll be free to do that as well.

I think a GMI (guaranteed minimum income) or similar system is what's going to be needed to transition from our present monetary/debt based system to whatever we end up with in the future. At the very least it will be needed as a failsafe against societal collapse. It's not something I see as being needed right now, but will be needed sometime in the next few decades.

 

[Benji49]

I disagree. Here's why:



To be sure, politicians talk a good game. They argue for economic efficiency on a macro scale, knowing that most voters - the folks they most care to persuade - will never check their assertions.

That's why making an economic argument is useless. Economic efficiency is not on politicians' radar beyond using it as a sound byte. Can't blame them. It delivers a horrible ROI (i.e. votes, cash, security, prestige, and other goodies).

Ah yes, the argument I put forward is invalid if politicians are not held to account.

But that what we must do. Hold them to account, vote for the other guy, if necessary pull out your wallet and make a donation.

I have done all those things. I should do more.

But I have been very very lucky. I am Canadian and I was fortunate enough to travel extensively on the corporate dime when I was younger.

My society is not broken. It actually works pretty damn well. I know because I seen other countries where society doesn't work well at all.

It's easy to say that politicians are a bunch of corrupt psychopaths. But regardless I can walk down the street and order a damn fine cup of coffee without being stabbed or asked for briber.

(God, I just read my post and got all warm and fuzzy inside. But it could just the booze. Time to shut up)

 

[lukep]

But that what we must do. Hold them to account, vote for the other guy, if necessary pull out your wallet and make a donation.

The year is now 2014. Do you have any idea how retarded this sounds?

 

[Benji49]

The year is now 2014. Do you have any idea how retarded this sounds?

lol

Says the guy who moved back from Thailand to Kansas. Besides I was drunk last night when I wrote it so that gets me off the hook.

 

[kingofsp]

I disagree. Here's why:

Making an economic argument assumes that politicians are interested in lowering aggregate costs. But that assumption is highly optimistic. In fact, I'd argue that it's delusional. From education and healthcare to legislation over unions, drugs - both illicit and legal - and "national security," we can see that lowering costs has never been a driving force (though all have been promoted that way).

To be sure, politicians talk a good game. They argue for economic efficiency on a macro scale, knowing that most voters - the folks they most care to persuade - will never check their assertions.

That's why making an economic argument is useless. Economic efficiency is not on politicians' radar beyond using it as a sound byte. Can't blame them. It delivers a horrible ROI (i.e. votes, cash, security, prestige, and other goodies).

So if politicians aren't interested in economic efficiency, what do they seek to gain? And should the measures they use - i.e. aggression - to gain those things be legitimized by voters.

Thus, we arrive at morality.

So much dang this. I find it very difficult to engage people in discussion about these issues because the premise is never examined.

Politicians lie, and their interests are not in line with the interests of the people but rather in line with whoever the hell paid to get them into office.

I think many people understand this, but for some reason they lock that fact away in some inconvenient truth compartment in their brain and then proceed to argue facts and figures that would become completely irrelevant if you could open up that compartment and factor into the equation that the stated goal of a politician is never his or her actual goal.

It does not matter who you vote for. By the time a politician's name enters your ear hole, he or she has already been bought and paid for. How else would you have heard of them?

 

[JohnCJackson]

I've mostly seen this idea as proposed by libertarian academics and paleo-conservatives, fwiw. I'm not opposed to it, looking at it from a political realist perspective with the idea that it would replace all programs. In other words, a "less bad" idea that would have more (though still not much) chance of working in a non-utopian society with all its baggage. I also think it would encourage entrepreneurship, but if the means to that end conflict with your political ideology I understand you aren't likely to support it.