What's your position on a universal minimum income?

[RodISHI]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Basic income - Wikipedia

I'm assuming you to mean universal in the sense of being global (most people simply associate it with just across the states).

If this is what you mean, I am strictly against this notion. The only way for some nations to really compete with developed economies is with their ultra cheap labor force. If you instill a universal minimum wage (which is noted to encourage unemployment, if the wage is above the equilibrium point of labor supply and demand for it), then you are likely to increase the gap between the industrialized world and emerging economies (thereby increasing human suffering) rather than healing that gap.

This isn't even getting into more technical issues such as our exchange rates, how different governments handle their currency, social support issues, etc.

Well , I was only considering it for the US. If it was adopted on a universal scale we would need a global currency.

Does not work as not all areas cost the same to live in.

But , last time I checked the US was a free country: you are free to move anywhere you like.
Probably the only restriction would be that you spend 90% of the time within the US, as part of the goal is spending the money to increas production.

That sounds all fine and dandy but it does actually cost money to move from one area to another. Travel cost. The ability to move freely is not exactly free.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Basic income - Wikipedia

I'm assuming you to mean universal in the sense of being global (most people simply associate it with just across the states).

If this is what you mean, I am strictly against this notion. The only way for some nations to really compete with developed economies is with their ultra cheap labor force. If you instill a universal minimum wage (which is noted to encourage unemployment, if the wage is above the equilibrium point of labor supply and demand for it), then you are likely to increase the gap between the industrialized world and emerging economies (thereby increasing human suffering) rather than healing that gap.

This isn't even getting into more technical issues such as our exchange rates, how different governments handle their currency, social support issues, etc.

Well , I was only considering it for the US. If it was adopted on a universal scale we would need a global currency.

Does not work as not all areas cost the same to live in.

But , last time I checked the US was a free country: you are free to move anywhere you like.
Probably the only restriction would be that you spend 90% of the time within the US, as part of the goal is spending the money to increas production.

That sounds all fine and dandy but it does actually cost money to move from one area to another. Travel cost. The ability to move freely is not exactly free.

The minimum income would cover part of that cost. What's the big deal? You could adjust by inflation per zip, but that would only complicate matters . There are a ton of things that could go wrong. Easy and simple every adult gets the same minimum income.

 

[RodISHI]

I'm assuming you to mean universal in the sense of being global (most people simply associate it with just across the states).

If this is what you mean, I am strictly against this notion. The only way for some nations to really compete with developed economies is with their ultra cheap labor force. If you instill a universal minimum wage (which is noted to encourage unemployment, if the wage is above the equilibrium point of labor supply and demand for it), then you are likely to increase the gap between the industrialized world and emerging economies (thereby increasing human suffering) rather than healing that gap.

This isn't even getting into more technical issues such as our exchange rates, how different governments handle their currency, social support issues, etc.

Well , I was only considering it for the US. If it was adopted on a universal scale we would need a global currency.

Does not work as not all areas cost the same to live in.

But , last time I checked the US was a free country: you are free to move anywhere you like.
Probably the only restriction would be that you spend 90% of the time within the US, as part of the goal is spending the money to increas production.

That sounds all fine and dandy but it does actually cost money to move from one area to another. Travel cost. The ability to move freely is not exactly free.

The minimum income would cover part of that cost. What's the big deal? You could adjust by inflation per zip, but that would only complicate matters . There are a ton of things that could go wrong. Easy and simple every adult gets the same minimum income.

Okay send the check I'll look for it in the mailbox.

 

[Boss]

Can they get their checks daily before the liquor stores close or shall it be a weekly or monthly event? What about the stay at home mom who's watching someone's kids for $100/wk... should she quit and just take the handout instead?

1) Yes , it includes homeless bums.
2) No , they would get monthly checks. If they spend all in in the first week. Well tough luck, that was their call.
3) Well if it is a lot of money in Missisipi and you live in LA , you would probably consider moving to Missisipi ( or any other place for that matter).
4) Taking care fo kids for $100 per week? For how many hours? Well , maybe she would quit or maybe not. That's her call. Maybe she is better off learning a degree online from MIT . If I am getting less than $8 per hour I would certainly quit and get another part time job that pays more.

It doesn't fit everyone, but it certainly fit 90% of people. If you work and make money you would get $5,000 back as a tax cut. Which I find great.

Yes, there can be a push to rise it. In fact it will rise, because it will be afixed percent of gdp ( e.g.10-15) and it will allways be less than the government tax revenues.

As I said the risk is when a country has no industrial or agricultural base, but the US has it.
This policy would be useless in Zimbabwe or Afghanistan, money supply will not increase production or productivity.

Regarding Reagan,
My source is usually the Federal Reserve of St Louis , because they have a nice set of reports. According to the site tax revenues as a percent of gdp went down from 18.6% in 1981 to 17.3% in 1988. That is a 6% decrease in tax revenue.
So far the FRED has prooved to be a reliable , soI can't accept your argument unless you provide the link to your source.

Now my point, if government cuts back government spending drastically it can create a recession. So Reagonomics worked because the government maintained the expenditure level ( by increasing debt), in spite of the decrease in tax revenues .

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

I will reconsider my position once you provide the link to your source.

1) Where are you going to send the bums checks to?
2) Remind me to buy cheap liquor stock.
3) I'm going to sue the government to pay for my move because it's not my fault $5k isn't the same in LA as in MS.
4) Why would she work for $5k when she can not work for $5k?

Oh, so now it's gonna be a tax cut too? So we're gonna increase the taxes to pay for it (because that's the only way to pay for it) then we're gonna give a tax break for it.... Why not just not do it and say we did?

Look... you print new money without anything to back it and you devalue the currency. So you make $5k more but now $50k is worth $45k... again, why don't we not do it and say we did?

Regarding tax revenues under Reagan:

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

1980 tax revenues = $517 bil
1988 tax revenues = $909 bil

A 75.8% increase in constant 2009 dollars.
As percentage of GDP it's relatively the same.

This is from OMB historical tables provided by the US Treasury Dept. These are the people who receive the tax revenues so I think they would know.

 

[CultureCitizen]

1) Where are you going to send the bums checks to?
2) Remind me to buy cheap liquor stock.
3) I'm going to sue the government to pay for my move because it's not my fault $5k isn't the same in LA as in MS.
4) Why would she work for $5k when she can not work for $5k?

Oh, so now it's gonna be a tax cut too? So we're gonna increase the taxes to pay for it (because that's the only way to pay for it) then we're gonna give a tax break for it.... Why not just not do it and say we did?

1) They would have to open a bank account. Again , if they can't open it well , tough luck.
2) Ok boss, I'll do that if universal minimum income ever gets enacted.
3) Well nor it's the governments fault ... it's the market's fault... kind of hard sueing the market.
4) Because she would have $10k in total.

Well yea .. that's how Milton proposed it : as a negative income tax. Zero income you get some bucks, some income you pay no taxes. High income you pay high taxes , but still get your "negative income tax".
Of course , if you pay $50k in taxes $5k you will probably be unconcerned about the %5k.
The point is that those $5k mean a lot to people at the lower end.

Not necesarily , Milton actually proposed to get rid of medicare and medicaid and give the money directly to the people. It would reduce the government's payroll significantly. And give people the opportunity to choose. He was a libertarian after all.
Does it now sound more reasonable to you ?

Thanks for the link Boss, I'll take a look at it and compare it with the gdp growth. Maybe comparing to gdp was a bit unfair , specially if the economy did well during that period. I'll analyze the data and make another post later.

 

[Boss]

Still not buying your minimum income idea, it just seems dumb. All it does is drive the market up because the market understands you now have $5k in your pocket as opposed to none. So prices on everything go up because... hey, you've got free money! We saw this happen in principle with student loans. As soon as every student had "free money" in their pocket, tuition fees skyrocketed because.. hey, you've got free money to blow now!

So I don't care what you OR Milton Friedman think, it's a stupid idea that won't serve ANY real purpose but cause things to go up in price. Then you'll be right back here begging for MORE "free money" to help the less fortunate. This solves ZERO problems.

Thanks for the link Boss, I'll take a look at it and compare it with the gdp growth. Maybe comparing to gdp was a bit unfair , specially if the economy did well during that period. I'll analyze the data and make another post later.

Well the link shows GDP over on the right hand side. There is a slight difference but it's really not as significant as the 75% increase in revenue.

 

[Markle]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

I have been getting an education every single day of my life: I am a computer scientist, and I am actually very concerned about the advances in AI, many jobs are going to be destroyed in the next 20 years, it is going to be very hard for people to retool for the kind jobs that will be needed .

Yo, if you`re concerned about your future? I suggest you start getting into another job now, you can start driving a Big Rig, cost you nothing, join a trucking company who will pay for your training, and you can make more or the same as you`re making now! People need to use their GOD giving Brain, simple!!!

P.S. You Might Get Your Hands Dirty, But You Can Pay Your Bills, And Fill Your Stomach!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112929

Driving anything is a short term solution. No longer a good career choice as driverless cars and trucks are going to put millions of drivers out of work in the near future. By near future, I mean less than 20 years and most likely we'll start seeing a big effect in fewer than 10 years.

 

[Markle]

Well , I assume you are a republican ... you ( republicans now have the upper hand ). Time to see if republican policies work ... or not.

We sure know what failure looks like from the malaise of the past eight years.

 

[Markle]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

The cost of living is radically different in different locations of the Nation and of the World.

Thus if the conclusion is that there should be law dictating a minimum wage, then it needs to be flexible and variable enough to fit each different location across the Country.

I do believe that employment law should dictate what the minimum hourly payment should be to a person working as an employee to someone else.

And I believe that anyone who cannot meet that requirement as an employer should not be allowed to legally employ anyone else. Instead they should be relegated to working as a self employed person, or in a partnership with other self employed persons where they then divide up their proceeds equally so that they can meet the same benchmark for the minimum wage for their given location.

All work deserves a living wage, not a starvation wage.

Malarkey!

 

[Markle]

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

Self-driving cars are hazardous.

Everyplace where self-driving cars have been tried they have been banned.

Think about factory robots instead.

They don't make mistakes.

They don't belong to unions.

They just cannot think.

Although factory workers don't think much anyway either.

WAY off regarding self-driving cars and trucks.

Saying they're hazardous is no different that what was said about the first cars, by those driving horse-drawn carriages.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Still not buying your minimum income idea, it just seems dumb. All it does is drive the market up because the market understands you now have $5k in your pocket as opposed to none. So prices on everything go up because... hey, you've got free money! We saw this happen in principle with student loans. As soon as every student had "free money" in their pocket, tuition fees skyrocketed because.. hey, you've got free money to blow now!

So I don't care what you OR Milton Friedman think, it's a stupid idea that won't serve ANY real purpose but cause things to go up in price. Then you'll be right back here begging for MORE "free money" to help the less fortunate. This solves ZERO problems.

Thanks for the link Boss, I'll take a look at it and compare it with the gdp growth. Maybe comparing to gdp was a bit unfair , specially if the economy did well during that period. I'll analyze the data and make another post later.

Well the link shows GDP over on the right hand side. There is a slight difference but it's really not as significant as the 75% increase in revenue.

Doesn't the same argument hold true when income tax is reduced?
Prices should go up because everyone has more money to spend?

 

[Markle]

No new technology changes the employment landscape overnight. Just because a new tech is available doesn't mean business is ready to make the switch. It usually takes a decade or more for most major innovations to catch on. In the meantime, it is more a gradual change happening over time.

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

It's business ready now if you want to invest in it. The problem is, it cost prohibitive. And it will probably still be cost prohibitive in ten years for most "driver" jobs because most driver jobs today consist of other things besides just driving.

Yeah, eventually most driving will be done by computers. So? Once, most driving was powered by horses. We transitioned. People had to change careers. That's progress and how it works.

I understand Milton Friedman is a conservative economist, I agree with Friedman on a lot of things. I disagree with him on this. Again... you didn't address my counter argument. Whenever you establish an arbitrary "minimum" it prices some individuals out because they don't meet the level of value you've established. What do we do about them?

Okay... let's say I have two jobs in my plant... One is for toilet cleaner and the other is for sweeper. I hire two people to do these menial jobs and they are paid a menial wage. You come along and tell me I have to increase the "minimum income" which will double the amount I currently pay. Guess what I am going to do? I'm going to fire one of them and the other will be doing both jobs.

Ah , Boss,
But universal basic income would not be imposed directly on corporations ... and that's the beauty of it.It just requires an increase in tax revenues. Steve Keen is bold enough to suggest that since the Fed can create money, it can put that money directly into every citizen's accounts. And such action will not cause any inflation if two conditions are met:
1) The country has sufficient production infrastructure
2) Trade balance remains stable ( and in this the US might be the exception since it is the dollar is the reserve currency ) .

It will actually increase consumption ( demand side economics).

I am HOPING you are being facetious.

 

[Anathema]

No. A Universal Minimum Income would require a Universal.Minimum Work Output and the lazy turds would never agree to anything like that.

 

[esthermoon]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

Sometimes education is not enough. And there are people who are not able to get a degree

 

[Markle]

Agreed. But this paragraph made me think about Reagan, weren't Reagonomics all about reducing taxes and regulation? How did the economy perform then? It has been tried, it didn't yield the results that were promissed.

What happened was 97 straight months of economic growth and prosperity, never before realized in peacetime American history at the time. A 75% increase in tax revenues over 8 years. 114 million jobs. Left in the dust (and apparently forgotten) was the Carter Malaise. Double-digit inflation, 21% prime interest rates, foreclosures and bankruptcies galore, etc.

Now he passed this off to Pappy Bush who was no Reaganomics guy... he didn't understand it... called it "voodoo economics"... and inside 4 years, he stalled it out with tax increases demanded by the Democrats. Since then, everyone who didn't like Reagan has decried it as a failure.

As for the rest of your post... I am not interested in following the Brits or the Japanese. I already know what works better than anything man has ever created. It's NOT some pie in the sky notion of free money falling from the heavens.

And by the way... $5k a year? I could live off that.

Meager growth and shared misery you mean.

Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama. The first president in American history to NOT have a single year of growth above 3%.

IF the economy was as good as you WISH to believe, do you really believe President Donald Trump would have won by such a landslide had the economy been as good as you WISH?

 

[Markle]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

Sometimes education is not enough. And there are people who are not able to get a degree

We need lots of plumbers, skilled carpenters, welders and the list goes on...and on...and on!

 

[Anathema]

Sometimes education is not enough. And there are people who are not able to get a degree

True. Those people fill in the lower end service and less technical jobs in our society.

 

[Markle]

The minimum income would cover part of that cost. What's the big deal? You could adjust by inflation per zip, but that would only complicate matters . There are a ton of things that could go wrong. Easy and simple every adult gets the same minimum income.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

I have been getting an education every single day of my life: I am a computer scientist, and I am actually very concerned about the advances in AI, many jobs are going to be destroyed in the next 20 years, it is going to be very hard for people to retool for the kind jobs that will be needed .

Yo, if you`re concerned about your future? I suggest you start getting into another job now, you can start driving a Big Rig, cost you nothing, join a trucking company who will pay for your training, and you can make more or the same as you`re making now! People need to use their GOD giving Brain, simple!!!

P.S. You Might Get Your Hands Dirty, But You Can Pay Your Bills, And Fill Your Stomach!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112929

Driving anything is a short term solution. No longer a good career choice as driverless cars and trucks are going to put millions of drivers out of work in the near future. By near future, I mean less than 20 years and most likely we'll start seeing a big effect in fewer than 10 years.

Yo, I see what you`re saying, BUT? I can`t see a Big Rig going down the highway without a driver!

"GTP"

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, how about just getting an EDUCATION, FOOLS!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 112925

Sometimes education is not enough. And there are people who are not able to get a degree

Yo, you don`t need a degree, go to night school, and learn a trade, simple!

"GTP"