Basic Income movement

[AnonEMouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bld999 A mouse in a goat pen? That sounds like lots of room to me...

But I'm a field mouse.

[Fermion]

Yeah, I really need to get up to speed on this new crop of gullible 20 and 30 year olds.

I should see about creating some gofundme requests for a quad ski, trip to Antarctica, maybe a Alaska expedition. All you need is a few thousand people addicted to social media and a good story and you got cash.

[Fermion]

Is Sally Struthers still alive? I could sign her up to do my income crowd funding.

"For just $4 a day, the price of a double tall latte with extra shot of vanilla, you can support Fermion's quadski dream"

I could even put on a forlorn face for the gofundme commercial.

[Sarah in SC]

I have to admit that I'm a little nonplussed by the general acceptance of the GoFund me requests I've seen among acquaintances and thankfully more distant family. I think we discussed that on an earlier thread, as I have a cousin who set up a donation page to help him and his baby mama move back to the east coast from the midwest. It seemed a bit, I dunno, much.

I'm mostly interested in the social improvements at the lowest income levels, hence my noting of the Canadian experiment. I'm a little less indulgent of the better-heeled wanting me to cough up for them to to quadski...I'm talking to you Fermion!

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Is Sally Struthers still alive? I could sign her up to do my income crowd funding. "For just $4 a day, the price of a double tall latte with extra shot of vanilla, you can support Fermion's quadski dream" I could even put on a forlorn face for the gofundme commercial.

Its taking the art of begging to an all-time low. My respect level for the "worker" willing to stand by a street corner with a bucket and sign has now gone up considerably. At least they are willing to put their time in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HFWR]

Back when I had a land line...

Solicitor: We're from XYZ charity, and we're collecting to help those down on their luck.

Me: Well, I'm glad you called. I've been ill, and lost my job. My water heater is on the fritz, my car needs tires, and we've been eating ramen for two weeks. I could really use your help!

Solicitor: Click...

[Andre1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Is Sally Struthers still alive? I could sign her up to do my income crowd funding. "For just $4 a day, the price of a double tall latte with extra shot of vanilla, you can support Fermion's quadski dream" I could even put on a forlorn face for the gofundme commercial.

No, little guyl, I ain't giving you no four bucks so you and the Meathead can fund those pinko-commie organizations!


And yeah, Sally Struthers is still alive; I think she's around 66 or so by now.

[SteveNU]

I immediately thought of this quote when I read this. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Yeah, I really need to get up to speed on this new crop of gullible 20 and 30 year olds.

crash course - communicate only via social media or text messages for the next week - absolutely no voice communication during this period

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah in SC I'm mostly interested in the social improvements at the lowest income levels, hence my noting of the Canadian experiment.

There is new interest in this idea, motivated in large part by the fear that productivity has risen to a point where all or our needs can be fulfilled without employing much of the work force. It's not paying people who don't want to work, it is redistributing money where there aren't enough jobs for the working age population.

Economists do not agree whether this is a likely scenario. I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to try to lower the basic cost of living through hard and soft infrastructure improvements, so that more people could get by on less.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB It's not paying people who don't want to work, it is redistributing money where there aren't enough jobs for the working age population.

And, it would seem, disconnecting "work" from "reward".

There are many advantages to the way this challenge has traditionally been met (i.e. have people redistribute themselves to where the opportunities are). It worked to get this country settled, and to address every labor imbalance we've experienced. Moreover, the population of people/families willing to move to where the jobs/opportunities will be a self-selected group that is highly motivated. A group of people that want to stay in one place (usually a place with favorable weather and a deep social safety net) and wait for the money to come to them--well, let's just say it's not a model for improving self-reliance. And maybe that's the point of the whole exercise . . .

Pumping money into a place with few job opportunities helps assure that costs for housing, food, essential cable TV, etc will climb yet further beyond the means of those employed to afford them. A quick look at the far-beyond-inflation price increases for higher education is a guide to the helpfulness of government programs to make something "affordable" with buckets of easy cash.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB It's not paying people who don't want to work, it is redistributing money where there aren't enough jobs for the working age population.

It used to be that people would move to where the jobs were. Having the taxpayer fund them to stay in an area with no jobs doesn't solve a problem...it creates one.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan You'd be surprised, I have friends in their early 30s who work and pay taxes but still think "the rich" can pay for all the social programs we "need." However, these friends are not high earners.

My friends who fit your description define "the rich" as anyone earning a penny more than them. Really flexible folks. They get a $1k raise and immediately feel that tax brackets should move up $1k so "the rich" pay more but they continue to pay less.

Sigh...... Observing life and people is one of the most interesting things about being retired and having time to do so.

[Davis65]

From what I recall of what I have read about the experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba, called the MINCOME experiment, it was ended early, and the funding to analyse the data was cut off, so it was was never properly analysed. Recently, someone has looked at the health outcomes, and concluded that there were significant savings for our universal public health insurance system. What has not been properly explored is the impact on labour market participation, i.e., did people stop working because they were getting handouts. This issue is particularly difficult to unpack because the participants knew that it was an experiment, so the money was time-limited. Would people react differently if the program had been permanent? I think you might expect that some people who want to take advantage of the temporary program while it lasts by quitting work, but wouldn't quit work permanently for an ongoing program because of the social and psychological benefits of work. The key point is that we should rush to conclude that MINCOME was a success that other jurisdictions should emulate. Also, the experiment took place in the early 1970s when Archie Bunker was firmly ensconced in his armchair. Would we get the same result now?

[Davis65]

*should NOT rush to conclude...

[AnonEMouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover It used to be that people would move to where the jobs were. Having the taxpayer fund them to stay in an area with no jobs doesn't solve a problem...it creates one.

I think that's complicated by the fact that most households are now dual income.

[karen1972]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover It used to be that people would move to where the jobs were. Having the taxpayer fund them to stay in an area with no jobs doesn't solve a problem...it creates one.

Maybe that's the issue, maybe the taxpayers could assist with the moves.. It use to be companies paid to move you, but that is less and less these days making mobility difficult. Do you risk moving before you have a job? and if you try to apply for a job remote, will they even look at your application..usually NOT.

I'd love to see some type of "experiment" where people could be assisted in moving to where jobs were. Obviously it becomes difficult with dual incomes and just leaving family/friends, but you might be able to find enough people that would help rebalance the disparity we have with jobs not being filled .. vs. people with qualifications not moving and it would benefit the states that help people "move in".

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by karen1972 Maybe that's the issue, maybe the taxpayers could assist with the moves.. It use to be companies paid to move you, but that is less and less these days making mobility difficult. Do you risk moving before you have a job? and if you try to apply for a job remote, will they even look at your application..usually NOT.

I've never moved without a job and megacorp always paid for it.

[aim-high]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB There is new interest in this idea, motivated in large part by the fear that productivity has risen to a point where all or our needs can be fulfilled without employing much of the work force. It's not paying people who don't want to work, it is redistributing money where there aren't enough jobs for the working age population. Economists do not agree whether this is a likely scenario. I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to try to lower the basic cost of living through hard and soft infrastructure improvements, so that more people could get by on less.

I think all our real needs with respect to food, clothing, and shelter can be fulfilled without employing much of the work force. It's why there is so much junk produced along with plenty of wasted time.

But you know the saying...one man's junk is another man's treasure.

[razztazz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter I've never moved without a job and megacorp always paid for it.

Goodie, but it means nothing except for you. Unless all or nearly all workers can expect that it is not a workable idea. Only the exceptions get that kind of deal. The Masses don't and never can The system won't support it. . That is why companies off-shore jobs. They have no intention of moving anybody.