Basic Income movement

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[AnonEMouse]

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

Lucky you. Most of the jobs I've seen, even for internal positions, do not have relocation assistance anymore. You must be pretty high up or have skills in high demand for that.

 

[Big_Hitter]

Lucky you. Most of the jobs I've seen, even for internal positions, do not have relocation assistance anymore. You must be pretty high up or have skills in high demand for that.

I have professional credentials that took years of sacrifice.

When everyone else in their 20s was out picking strawberries in Spain and/or taking motorcycle trips across the country I was working 40-50 hours a week and studying.

 

[Big_Hitter]

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.

seasoned professionals get relos, especially when changing firms

ask a comp consultant if you don't believe me

 

[Totoro]

It depends a bit on the country and area of course, but in many places we already have a "basic income" of sorts cobbled together. The US probably much less so than for example European countries.

Emergency medical care, unemployment benefits, social benefits, pensions, handicapped, childcare, housing subsidies, even soup kitchens, homeless shelters, safe houses, food stamps, are all handouts of some sorts.

The big difference is that most of these are targeted at people unable to contribute to society (anymore).

Now, what about those unwilling to contribute? Will we let them starve to death, be homeless or sick?

That to me is the philosophical question and I don't have a clear answer. I tend to lean to "no" though and towards giving everyone a minimum.

This way we can cut back on waste in figuring out who is unable (vs. unwilling) and also out of abundance reasoning: Even if we had a bunch of slackers getting less than minimum wage for doing nothing, would it really make a dent in our economy? Maybe we're better off them not being in the workforce

I don't know, it's interesting though to think about it.

 

[AnonEMouse]

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.

Yup, it's either your time or your money. This has been discussed here before I believe:

Economics: Whatever happened to Keynes' 15-hour working week? asks Larry Elliott | Business | The Guardian

"Back in 1930, Keynes predicted that the working week would be drastically cut, to perhaps 15 hours a week, with people choosing to have far more leisure as their material needs were satisfied."

Some, especially on here, have embraced a simpler/cheaper life to enjoy life, but most have overwhelmingly voted for more work/money/stuff.

But from a theoretical standpoint, if everyone worked 15 hour weeks, there would be enough work to go around, though the standard of living would be lower. So those that want a higher SOL would work longer to earn more money, driving prices up in the process. So everyone else would now have to work longer to maintain the same SOL they had before. But then others would work even harder to get a better SOL, so more hours and then....

Unfortunately this is the nature of the beast until the human population declines appreciably. The only reason 40 hours is now the norm is because it's enshrined in law. And of course many "exempt" employees generally work more than the norm.

The only way to get out of the whole mess is to work 168 hrs a week, earn a Boeing 747-load of money, quit, live off the earnings, and die a day later of pure exhaustion. Or work, save, invest, LBYM, and retire a few decades later, but that's just boring and take too long.

 

[Big_Hitter]

But from a theoretical standpoint, if everyone worked 15 hour weeks, there would be enough work to go around, though the standard of living would be lower.

they mandate something like that in France - doesn't seem to be working

problem is there aren't an infinite number of jobs

 

[Sarah in SC]

Anon, that's an interesting article, thanks for sharing it.
This part caught my eye:
But Keynes also got it spectacularly wrong. Rising living standards have not led to people deciding that they can satisfy their material desires through a much truncated working week. The number of hours worked in the United States has remained pretty much steady for decades, and is 30% higher than in Europe. Europeans tend to use up all their holiday entitlement; Americans, even though their vacations are shorter, do not. The decision by Nicolas Sarkozy to scrap France's 35-hour week suggests that the American model is gaining the upper hand. Workers in the west are told to work longer and harder to meet the brutal competitive challenge from the east. If Keynes was right about a life of leisure, more of us would be working four-day weeks. As it is, the trend is in the opposite direction.

Followed by this:
Keynes's big failure was to recognise that distribution matters. The economic problem will not be solved while a quarter of the world lives in abject poverty, nor while a good slice of those living in developed countries are not sharing in economic prosperity or feel they need to spend longer and longer on the treadmill just to make ends meet.

Of course, I'd probably opt for the Boeing-sized load of cash, if there's a line forming for that option.

 

[Andre1969]

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.

Yup, I had a friend like that. Probably made about double what I make. Always complaining about "the rich". When I told him that most people would probably classify him as a member of "the rich", he didn't want to hear it. He then switched to demonizing the "1%". And didn't like it when I told him he was probably in the "10%" (income-wise, but not net-worth-wise). He still kept whining about how those "other" rich need to pay more. Nevermind the fact that there aren't enough of those "other" rich to go around, to solve all of this country's ills.

One other thing that might distort my friend's attitudes though, is living in Washington DC. Rowhouses that haven't been condo-ized yet are often going for $1M or more. And even the ones that have been broken up are turned into condos ranging from $400K-700K, depending on the size. So while a $150k salary (I think that's about what he made) could put you well into the top 10%, nationally, in DC you're going to be concentrated with a lot of other high income individuals, so suddenly it doesn't seem like much. DC has gotten to the point I don't think I could even afford to live in a bad neighborhood!

 

[samclem]

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

The increased "cost" of moving for dual income couples probably decreases the the flexibility of the US labor force, and reduces US productivity.
OTOH, there's obviously increased flexibility due to the fact that women can now find plenty of employment in fields where they haven't previously been. Men, too.
I've heard it said that one unintended impact of wider female career opportunities is to decrease the quality of our elementary school teachers. In the past, we had this tremendous pool of smart, talented women who would take jobs as schoolteachers at relatively low pay (because that was one of the few careers open to them). We got tremendous teachers at low cost (well--low cost to the school districts. Probably big opportunity costs to the economy as a whole).

 

[samclem]

t
problem is there aren't an infinite number of jobs

But, there ain't a fixed number, either. When labor costs go down (in a region or everywhere), new jobs are created because jobs that didn't make economic sense at higher wages become feasible. There's no finite number of jobs to be distributed, the number of jobs goes up and down for all kinds of reasons.